Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of atonal pieces (second 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. The arguments for deletion, from those who work on this topic area and precedence on other "list of X pieces" article is persuasive. Neil  ☎  15:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

List of atonal pieces
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Not only is it NOT what it says -- seems to be a list of composers instead of pieces -- but it's such a broad and hard to define topic. If it's turned into composers, who would be added? Would Bernstein? Debussy? Liszt? It seems as if the old AFD was unheeded. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep it's just no (almost) no pieces have been added yet. I tagged it expand. Do that, and it will follow the pattern of other in the "musical pieces by style" series--Victor falk 21:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yet? Have you seen how old it is? Sure, there are the others, but this is akin to making a list of pieces in A Major or something. It's just way too broad or without any true test of yes or not (unlike, say, violin and orchestra pieces) to really make a list out of. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 22:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * delete I work on several article like this one.  I can guarantee that this will grow out of control,  Way to broad a subject, and it's a subject that is open to interpretation. Ridernyc 22:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Anywhere else on Wikipedia this kind of nonsense would have deleted months ago for having no salvageable content. This is also obvious OR. --S.dedalus 23:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand The concept is I think capable of suitable definition & the article is therefore worth improving. DGG (talk) 03:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I’m not sure people understand the true impossibility of this article. There are literally MILLIONS of compositions that could be called atonal. Even if half of those are non notable, that’s still far too broad for a Wikipedia article. Also, who is to judge what is atonal? Atonal just means there is no perceptible key center, and that is entirely open to interpretation by the listener. Who is to say this piece is atonal and this is not? Furthermore it would be virtually impossible to find reliable sources stating that ANY of these pieces (or indeed any composition in existence) is or is not “atonal.” The article is and can never be more than original research plane and simple. --S.dedalus 06:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Send it to its atonal reward by a Merge into atonality. While S.dedalus is technically correct, I think the idea here is concerning classical compositions where atonality is intended, which, as he or she notes, is something that is usually open to interpretation.  As with sarcasm, very few composers come right out and say "By the way, this is intended to be atonal".  Mandsford 14:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Further comment. Four of the other “pieces” articles have already been deleted (impressionistic pieces, modernistic pieces, neoclassical pieces,and nationalistic pieces) and four others have achieved a “delete” consensus but have not yet been closed. That sets a strong president for the deletion of this page. Also, this would be far better as a category. There is no need to keep an original research list like this one. --S.dedalus 01:37, 18 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.