Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of compositions for viola: A to B


 * 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. Aside from the nominator, who rebuked several extensive reasons to keep the article, the other delete comments were simple mentions of policy without explaining why they apply to this article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:52, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

List of compositions for viola: A to B

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Including:
 * List of compositions for viola: C to E
 * List of compositions for viola: F to H
 * List of compositions for viola: I to K
 * List of compositions for viola: L to N
 * List of compositions for viola: O to R
 * List of compositions for viola: S
 * List of compositions for viola: T to Z

"Th[is] list includes works in which the viola is a featured instrument: viola solo, viola and piano, viola and orchestra, ensemble of violas, etc." Simply put, this page can contain pretty much any and every composition ever penned for the viola. This is not encyclopedic content. It's rather a indiscriminate database of pieces, and that is not what Wikipedia is for. This bloated, uncited list full of non-notable pieces serves few. Why? I Ask (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Lists.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The argument "This bloated, uncited list full of non-notable pieces serves few" is wrong. Each item lists composer, title, date, and usually publisher, which is plenty of information to constitute an academic citation.  It serves violists and anyone interested in the viola, which is quite a significant number of people.  I'm not aware of any other such list on the internet.  Saying the list is "bloated" is just criticizing it for being extensive.  Also, non-notability is not sufficient reason to delete a list.  []: "Songs may be described in a discography or one of the many lists of songs."   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fledermauskind (talk • contribs) 12:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If there's no other list on the internet then copy the information here and create another one on a site that's not designed to be an encyclopedia. It means little that each item has a composer, title, etc., because the formatting and validity of the list means nothing. This is a debate about whether or not such lists are within the realms of Wikipedia with such an infinite scope. And like I said earlier, serving violists means nothing too. Wikipedia would also not be accepting of guides on how to play a E natural scale on the instrument either. Why? I Ask (talk) 13:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete all per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. The number of musical compositions for this common orchestra instrument could be endless. Ajf773 (talk) 21:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete all with extreme viola-nce per nom. It's not even a list of only notable, articled pieces. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have known these lists for most of my time (13 years, and I met them early, and I couldn't believe we didn't have something similar for cello, oboe, - you name it.) The viola is an underrated instrument, and used less in a solo function than most of the other orchestra instruments, and I'm with the underrated. I love to see the lists grow (on my watchlist), and have occasionally added myself. I am biased, but see no reason to deprive the few readers who cherish this overview from a rich detailed factual source of knowledge. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The viola is an underrated instrument means nothing. Promoting viola repertoire can be a wonderful addition as a prose-based page or as a section on the instrument's article. Unfortunately an eight page list is not something Wikipedia is here for. You're welcome to create a smaller list that only includes actual famous viola solos and concertos for which Wikipedia has pages for, or host the list on a website that's not Wikipedia. But Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of every viola piece written. Why? I Ask (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand that by "promote" you mean mentioning the pieces that are already known, and have articles. The value of a list is to also have the others. I find list format much easier to understand than prose. Would you suggest to drop Bach's lost cantatas from the list of his cantatas just because nobody knows how thy sound? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No, because a composer's list of works has a clear and narrow scope. A list of every viola piece ever does not. And you can promote literature written for the instrument without only mentioning the already made articles (given that they are well cited as notable). Take a look at Vibraphone. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I took a look, and if I was looking for literature to perform on that instrument, I would be disappointed. - Please understand that I force myself to no more than two comments per discussion. Bach's scope is not narrow, take a look at BWV. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No, but the list you mentioned has a narrow scope. And even the BWV has less entries and a more defined scope than "every viola piece ever". Your comparison is not the greatest. Wikipedia is not here to host lists for violist to discover music. There are thousands of sites and books that aren't encyclopedias foremost to achieve that. All your argument reduces to is "it's useful" which is not a policy based reason to keep it. Why? I Ask (talk) 21:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Was project Classical music informed of this discussion, beyond the alerts? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The lists do seem indiscriminate, but it would be a shame to lose this, too. At minimum, it may be worth thinking about transwiking to, say, wikibooks? Perhaps there's a way to divide it up further into types of compositions, and perhaps those smaller lists could more easily be backed up by RS to justify NLIST? &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 00:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't believe that any lists of entire instruments' repertoire are needed, regardless of any potential usefulness. It's just not something Wikipedia is designed to do. For actual page navigation we have categories, such as those under Category:Compositions by instrumentation. Certainly there can be articles such as Piano Concerto or sections like Marimba (still a work in progress) that can discuss particularly important pieces in prose. But large lists are really not necessary. Why? I Ask (talk) 00:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. This article has existed for around fifteen years, and any concerns about the suitability of the content for Wikipedia could—and presumably should—have been raised many years ago, particularly at the point when the page was created (or when the original page was subsequently split into multiple pages in 2008). If the article predates the establishment of the indiscriminate concept, then it should be grandfathered in. By now, these pages are entrenched in the research community, and no benefit can come from deleting them, while much harm will come if they are deleted. Gerda raises many relevant points related to the structure and organization of information, and the content on Wikipedia is arranged in a variety of formats to suit various purposes. Indeed, dynamic lists exist because list formats are helpful in many contexts. Comparing this article to other content on Wikipedia will always be imperfect, but as an example, the Willie Nelson Discography Singles page lists 156 solo singles, likely every one he released, of which 79 (more than half) never charted. Is this list indiscriminate? Why are so many non-notable singles on this list? Is this list only acceptable because it is “clear and narrow in scope,” even if the content is indiscriminate? (And while one might argue that Willie’s discography will eventually become finite, many recent artists seem to continue releasing material long after they have left the earth. His discography could truly become “endless” as well.) In another imperfect comparison, Wikipedia divides the various Hurricane Seasons by year (a logical arrangement) and then lists all of the systems for each year. Since tropical storms and depressions will result in “endless” lists of non-notable storms added over time, is including this information indiscriminate (even if it is packaged in a manner that you would seem to approve of)? Eight of the twenty-one systems in the 2021 Atlantic Hurricane System resulted in no damage and no deaths. In essence, they were non events, unlikely to be remembered by humanity. Why not remove them from the page; wouldn’t that “improve” it? One of the great strengths of Wikipedia is the flexibility it provides in formatting and presenting content in a manner that best suits the subject. That is what the creator and subsequent editors have done with this article, and I believe that future generations should be permitted to benefit from the article.Dbynog (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You don't really make any points towards keeping this page. Willie Nelson's single list will certainly not be endless, and it certainly won't number in the millions like "every piece written for viola". There is also no such thing as a grandfather clause on Wikipedia. Consensus changes, and with it, the pages. All hurricanes are usually considered notable. Every viola piece, including those by non-notable composers is not. Why? I Ask (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Bloated listcruft. D4iNa4 (talk) 07:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Pure listcruft, which serves no conceivable useful purpose.--Smerus (talk) 08:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – This, and its companion pages for the other letters of the alphabet, would be impressive, and I'm sure useful to some readers, if only it complied with our rules on verifiability by being adequately cited. It is visited by a few readers every day, I see, and it would be a pity to deny them these pages, but I cannot support the continuance of pages that so consistently lack citations to reliable sources. I'd be against any move to delete the pages for now, instead inviting the main contributor to tell us what, if anything, s/he proposes to do to make sure all entries are adequately cited. Given a satisfactory reply to that, I'd vote to keep. –  Tim riley  talk   08:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - Let's look at the specific Wikipedia policy for notability for lists, WP:LISTN: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." It is undisputable that "music composed for the viola" is a topic that has been discussed as a group by reliable sources. For example, Zeyringer, "Literature for the Viola" . Could this list be improved?  Sure, but that is not a valid reason for AfD. PianoDan (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Then, say, would you also be okay with me making a list of every orchestral or chamber ensemble piece in existence. Those, like this, would number in the millions, but there is definitely substantial literature on the two. Heck, Siwe's book for percussion ensemble literature is also around 500 pages with tiny entries. Why not make a list of every percussion ensemble piece? The issue isn't that there's not a level of validity. It's that "every viola piece ever" passes the level of indiscriminate. Why? I Ask (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete all. This is an indiscriminate collection of information (WP:IINFO).  Sandstein   06:36, 1 September 2022 (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.