Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F major (chord)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was Delete all. Consensus is that the topic of each of these articles represent what Wikipedia is not and are inappropriate content forks whose information could be covered adaquately in Chord (music), Major chord, and/or Minor chord. -- Jreferee    t / c  04:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

F major (chord)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Anyone able to explain how this deserves an article?? Georgia guy 18:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:N. Does not deserve an article at all. STORMTRACKER   94  19:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is just an instruction on how to make this chord. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Smashville 19:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. The following should probably also be included with this AfD per WP:NOT.
 * All of these pages are merely instructions as how to make the chords. There is no context as to what instrument, which leads me to believe that they could even be speedy deleted. However, this is clearly a case of WP:NOT. Smashville 19:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * All of these pages are merely instructions as how to make the chords. There is no context as to what instrument, which leads me to believe that they could even be speedy deleted. However, this is clearly a case of WP:NOT. Smashville 19:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * All of these pages are merely instructions as how to make the chords. There is no context as to what instrument, which leads me to believe that they could even be speedy deleted. However, this is clearly a case of WP:NOT. Smashville 19:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * All of these pages are merely instructions as how to make the chords. There is no context as to what instrument, which leads me to believe that they could even be speedy deleted. However, this is clearly a case of WP:NOT. Smashville 19:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * All of these pages are merely instructions as how to make the chords. There is no context as to what instrument, which leads me to believe that they could even be speedy deleted. However, this is clearly a case of WP:NOT. Smashville 19:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * All of these pages are merely instructions as how to make the chords. There is no context as to what instrument, which leads me to believe that they could even be speedy deleted. However, this is clearly a case of WP:NOT. Smashville 19:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * All of these pages are merely instructions as how to make the chords. There is no context as to what instrument, which leads me to believe that they could even be speedy deleted. However, this is clearly a case of WP:NOT. Smashville 19:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * All of these pages are merely instructions as how to make the chords. There is no context as to what instrument, which leads me to believe that they could even be speedy deleted. However, this is clearly a case of WP:NOT. Smashville 19:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * All of these pages are merely instructions as how to make the chords. There is no context as to what instrument, which leads me to believe that they could even be speedy deleted. However, this is clearly a case of WP:NOT. Smashville 19:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * All of these pages are merely instructions as how to make the chords. There is no context as to what instrument, which leads me to believe that they could even be speedy deleted. However, this is clearly a case of WP:NOT. Smashville 19:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * All of these pages are merely instructions as how to make the chords. There is no context as to what instrument, which leads me to believe that they could even be speedy deleted. However, this is clearly a case of WP:NOT. Smashville 19:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * All of these pages are merely instructions as how to make the chords. There is no context as to what instrument, which leads me to believe that they could even be speedy deleted. However, this is clearly a case of WP:NOT. Smashville 19:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * All of these pages are merely instructions as how to make the chords. There is no context as to what instrument, which leads me to believe that they could even be speedy deleted. However, this is clearly a case of WP:NOT. Smashville 19:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * All of these pages are merely instructions as how to make the chords. There is no context as to what instrument, which leads me to believe that they could even be speedy deleted. However, this is clearly a case of WP:NOT. Smashville 19:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * All of these pages are merely instructions as how to make the chords. There is no context as to what instrument, which leads me to believe that they could even be speedy deleted. However, this is clearly a case of WP:NOT. Smashville 19:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * All of these pages are merely instructions as how to make the chords. There is no context as to what instrument, which leads me to believe that they could even be speedy deleted. However, this is clearly a case of WP:NOT. Smashville 19:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * All of these pages are merely instructions as how to make the chords. There is no context as to what instrument, which leads me to believe that they could even be speedy deleted. However, this is clearly a case of WP:NOT. Smashville 19:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * All of these pages are merely instructions as how to make the chords. There is no context as to what instrument, which leads me to believe that they could even be speedy deleted. However, this is clearly a case of WP:NOT. Smashville 19:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * All of these pages are merely instructions as how to make the chords. There is no context as to what instrument, which leads me to believe that they could even be speedy deleted. However, this is clearly a case of WP:NOT. Smashville 19:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * All of these pages are merely instructions as how to make the chords. There is no context as to what instrument, which leads me to believe that they could even be speedy deleted. However, this is clearly a case of WP:NOT. Smashville 19:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * All of these pages are merely instructions as how to make the chords. There is no context as to what instrument, which leads me to believe that they could even be speedy deleted. However, this is clearly a case of WP:NOT. Smashville 19:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * All of these pages are merely instructions as how to make the chords. There is no context as to what instrument, which leads me to believe that they could even be speedy deleted. However, this is clearly a case of WP:NOT. Smashville 19:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * All of these pages are merely instructions as how to make the chords. There is no context as to what instrument, which leads me to believe that they could even be speedy deleted. However, this is clearly a case of WP:NOT. Smashville 19:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * All of these pages are merely instructions as how to make the chords. There is no context as to what instrument, which leads me to believe that they could even be speedy deleted. However, this is clearly a case of WP:NOT. Smashville 19:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Redirect them all To an article that discusses musical tones. (Don't know the name, but you get the idea).--Alasdair 19:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete & Redirect: All to Chord (music). - Rjd0060 19:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge anything not redundant to Chord (music) but no redirects. If you can write "F major (chord)", you can write "Chord".  Sadly, these could have been much more than what they are... for instance, Beethoven's Opus 59 was his Quartet No. 7, a string quartet in F major, opening with this chord.  Just as well to retire these before someone gets an idea to add that type of info. Mandsford 23:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep on the basis of mandford's statement that the articles could have been much more informative--I do not know why he thinks that would be an additional reason to delete. Its the subject that has to be notable, and stubs are acceptable. DGG (talk) 08:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * How do you propose an article be expanded on a chord? The article doesn't even contain the context of what instrument this is...Smashville 13:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as stubs, which actually pack a lot of contextual information into very little text. The chords are given types, intervals, and in some cases fretting. Unless someone wants to put all this into a snazzy table at chord (music), I don't see the objective here. --Dhartung | Talk 09:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Explaining what notes form a chord is not a how-to guide. As Mandsford suggests, they could easily be expanded to give significant uses of the chord in musical compositions. Espresso Addict 10:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Friends, I have a feeling that these articles will be no different 6 months from now. The person who wrote the F-major article wasn't thinking about "Quartet No. 7 in F-major", but was doing a "how to" (ya play F, A and the higher C together).  Nor do I think that any of us have the time or musical knowledge to make these work.  Not long ago, I had an interesting exchange with one editor who was shouting "If this can be sourced, please do it now."  My answer was, "not now, I'm eating lunch".  As I say, I don't think these are going to change, but if there's a movement in that direction, I would be in a chord with lobbying to keep.  Mandsford 12:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I tend to think in the long term -- if this project really intends to build the most comprehensive encyclopedia in human history then six months of stubbiness isn't such a problem. Espresso Addict 14:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but it isn't an expandable stub. That's the problem. There is absolutely nothing in these articles that can be expanded upon. They're not articles about notes, they are articles about chords. It's a fancy name for a "If you put a finger on this key and a finger on that key...it makes this sound..." There is nothing that can be expanded. Smashville 14:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree with Smashville. These may be stubs but stubs have guidelines too, and these have no chance for expansion. - Rjd0060 14:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I would delete these. The chord is not distinct form the key, as a subject for an encyclopaedia, and we already have articles on the keys.  What can be said about the chord for C major that can't be covered in a very short paragraph in C major?  There would be no problem splitting them out iof the sections on the chords in the key articles got long, but these are not long, they are very short indeed.  Cruftbane 11:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Major chord and minor chord, based on chord type. The (snazzy) tables on those pages include the spellings in the article. I agree it is unlikely anything else would be added, per Mandsford. The chords based on individual notes share far too much in common to make them distinct pages (as opposed to chord _types_, like major or minor). Rigadoun (talk) 14:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Major chord and minor chord, per Rigadoun. -- rynne 15:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge. It's an integral part of music, even though the individual articles are sort of inane, it'd be quite useful if either merged into a single page or even put into a segment of the major/minor chord pages. You wouldn't very well remove pages on the parts of automobiles, would you? PolarisSLBM 16:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Are specific chords really integral? An article on chords in general, yes, but that's like having an article on each different guitar fret. Smashville 19:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge - Notable information, of the kind which encyclopedias have included since the 18th century, but it's just silly to have each chord in its own page. Llajwa 15:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The article Chord (music) does the job, articles for each chord are redundant. Brianlucas 23:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all for now. We're acting like users are incapable of searching at all. SolidPlaid 03:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.