Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Influences in classical music (2nd nomination)


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 13:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Influences in classical music
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article consists of non-sourced, random, unlinked chunks of WP:OR. See also WP:NOT - 'Wikipedia articles are not ...lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional).' The page was listed earlier today as an AfD, but the creaor of the article deleted the header on the page (afterin fact the orignial nomination for deletion had been endorsed by another editor). This is therefore I suppose the second nomination. Smerus (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually it was was PRODed, not AFDed, which is completely different. Anway, I also vote Delete, as I said on WP:CLASSICAL -- It feels very...clunky. Especially since "x artist was influenced by y artist" is pretty much a staple for the large majority of artists across all arts. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Sourcing problems, topic is too broad to be covered in one article. Toccata quarta (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Article has practically no sources. Reads like hearsay or casual conversation than anything connected to research.  Since so much of music is based on influences, such an article would be infinite. -- kosboot (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  Cameron11598  (Converse) 22:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Agree with all of above.  Even if done well, this article would be far too long to make sense; "influence" ought to be discussed in the context of individual composers and works. This kind of article is just a parlor game for editors (as opposed to an effort to provide the public with clearly-organized information).   Opus33 (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - moreover, many paragraphs in the article (notably those which are grammatical) seem to be straightforwardly lifted from here.--Smerus (talk) 06:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. per above. This type of article is really not encyclopedic.  Klein zach  09:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. i disagree to the point that it does not feel scientific or encyclopedic, since it is written in formal methods. also, i disagree to the comment that it is far too wide to be one page, since Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia and people can add information to this page and improve it little by little. furthermore, i find this page interesting since it tries to gather information that is too much scattered among books on classical music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arash.akbari76 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * keep. i agree with arash.akbari76. also for the commment which said it seemes a lot of information is from that site ( alabama school of music): well, i looked at the page, i found some information from that site and i could see that it was cited, so i believe there is no problem with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.177.131.132 (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC) — 93.177.131.132 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comments: Extensive copyright material in the article has now been deleted by an editor under WP:COPYVIO. Arash.akbari76, who comments above, doesn't mention that he is one of the two editors who have contributed to the article.--Smerus (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment for 93.177.131.132, I was the editor who removed the copyright infringement. The material was lengthy and verbatim. It was way too long to have qualified as fair use, even if it had been clearly marked as a quote, which it wasn't. Simply citing the source, does not permit us to extensively copy the work of others. I'm also concerned that you may be one of the accounts who has created/extensively edited this article and are editing here while you are logged out. If you have already expressed an opinion here under another account name, you cannot vote "keep" again. I will leave you more information about this on your talk page.Voceditenore (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete To be viable, this article would need not only a fundamental re-write, but a complete refocus of the topic. It conflates "musical quotation" of one composer by another one with more nebulous "influences", e.g. one composer was an admirer of another one, or was taught by another one, much of it sourced from internet forums, yahoo answers etc., and the rest original research and synthesis. I suggest that the article's creator work on a more tightly focused, properly referenced draft in their user space and then submit it via the Articles for creation process. Voceditenore (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per sourcing concerns. This topic is too broad to be covered in a single article. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - as written, this violates WP:ESSAY and WP:LIST - it is sort of random. On the other hand, I am not against a properly-focused article on what should be a notable topic.  See WP:TNT? Bearian (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2013 (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.