Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hexany


 * 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 keep. John254 01:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hexany

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Weak delete: there doesn't seem to be a lot of support for the concept out there, and this article borders on original research, given that it's sourced to the main editor's website. I'm willing to withdraw if it's more widespread than it looks at the moment. uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 19:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I'm not happy with the exposition in the article, but it doesn't seem to be original research; Google scholar finds several research papers by different scholars on the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * None of it is original research - except perhaps the demo tune. The CPS concept including the hexany was developed by Erv Wilson and is used by many composers - see the composer link for examples. My contribution is that I made a java applet to make it easy for people to explore the hexany by clicking on it in a web page. That's why I linked to my web site. I thought my hexany phrase transformations would also be of interest as a demonstration of the symmetries of the hexany - but perhaps the Gene Ward Smith transformations I use to make the tune from the initial seed phrase would count as original research by him, as I don't know if he has published them or not. Probably he hasn't. Robertinventor (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've deleted the demo tune, as I think it could be considered to be original research because of the use of the Gene Ward Smith transformations, since I don't think they are currently published anywhere. Robertinventor (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The published sources seem sufficient to support the aticle. DGG (talk) 01:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, but maybe better in an article on combination product sets. -- Gabor B. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.14.254.45 (talk) 10:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

"In music theory, Erv Wilson's Combination Product Sets provide a method of constructing just tonation scales with small numbers of notes with large numbers of consonant chords, and a high degree of symmetry under permutation of the factors" - then continue " The first "interesting" example of a CPS is the hexany", or something like that, probably exposition of all that could be improved - and then rest of the article much as before. Robertinventor (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps one could do that fairly easily. Since the hexany is the "first interesting" CPS as the one with least notes, after the triad, tetrad or pentad - perhaps the existing article with a bit of reworking could be an intro to CPS using the method of starting the exposition with a "typical" example of the concept. Could move it to CPS, and redirect Hexany to it, rather than vice versa. My own experience is mainly with the hexany, since I made the hexany models and have also composed a few (short demo type) pieces for it - I've also made a couple of dekany java models and a pentadekany, but not attempted the eikosany, and not attempted compositions in any of those myself. So others would be more appropriate to write anything that needs to be said about those if the article were to be expanded a bit. But I can modify the article as is to make it a starting point for a possibly more complete exposition of CPS later on. Start it something like:
 * Keep It's not "original research" if several articles by different authors have been published. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  13:30, 12 February 2008 (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.