Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of impressionistic pieces


 * 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

List of impressionistic pieces

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is not a list of impressionistic pieces but a list of two composers. The subject is also completely open to interpretation. Who’s to say what “impressionistic piece” means? Even experts conflict in their interpretations of this. This page obviously has no usable content and is original research. S.dedalus 00:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nomination. --S.dedalus 00:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nomination. Torc2 00:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep and rename - Now that I think about it, "Impressionist" does have a somewhat defined set of aesthetic and historical criteria. Experts might disagree on specific works, but I think there's enough common definition to make it useful as a topic.  I'd suggest renaming it something like List of notable musical impressionist works. Torc2 00:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Neither Debussy nor Ravel wanted to be called that though. They really hated that term. --S.dedalus 01:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as nom & OR/POV. – Alex43223T 00:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. —Signed by KoЯn fan71 My TalkSign Here! 00:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I think the fact it only lists Debussy and Ravel says it all, really. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 00:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - & as others the terms are not defined herein, which leaves to massive COI on inclusion. Agree with Torc2 however, if renamed/recreated with an acceptable definition included it has possibilities.  SkierRMH 02:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Once again, sources must be insisted upon for lists such as this, since without sources, entries may be added without regard for verifiability. Nick Graves 04:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Some pieces by Debussy and Ravel. Very helpful, I don't think. --Folantin 07:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, there's no enough usable material here to justify a list. Moreschi Talk 09:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The argument that the list will always be incomplete or subjective really isn't enough reason to delete; the AfD discussion of List of musical works in unusual time signatures establishes the a precedent of that.  A list like this can be acknowledged as perpetually incomplete and somewhat subjective and still be a worthwhile resource.  I know that when I was studying music, a list of key representative pieces for genres like this would have been enormously helpful.  We just need to be diligent about establishing a clear purpose and maintaining the articles. Torc2 09:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Wikipedia is never 100% complete and so deleting an article because it cannot be completed doesn't really make sense.  However deleting because it is WP:OR does make sense.  Tbo 157   (talk)    (review)  12:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The list is not just perpetually incomplete, it’s also original research and original research gets deleted on Wikipedia. --S.dedalus 20:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So why not just tag it with the refimprove or unreferenced tags and give users a change to shape the article up? Torc2 03:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Because this article doesn’t just contain original research, it IS original research. --S.dedalus 06:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That really doesn't answer the question, though. The article is weak now, but it wouldn't be that hard to pull out a couple books on music history and find citations to justify the items on already this list.  I mean, if you ask most music historians to name a few important impressionist composers and works, they're going to name Debussy and Ravel and most of the works on that list.  By deleting this, we're essentially saying that the topic is unsuitable for Wikipedia; why not just tag it to say the article itself is bad and needs to be improved? Torc2 06:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This seems pretty obvious to me, but since you ask. . . For one this article has been in essentially this condition since 2004! If it hasn’t been improved since then it isn't going be. Wikipedia already has a List of compositions by Claude Debussy and a List of compositions by Maurice Ravel so this list is totally redundant as well. I was simply bold and nominated the page for deletion instead of tagging and letting some other user deal with this mess. As the user bellow points out this could be better as a category however. Feel free to create one if you wish. --S.dedalus 20:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * True, this article has been in this condition for...well, forever. But it also hasn't been marked to indicate there was anything wrong with it or anything requesting improvement.  I think where we're differing is that you're looking at this list as it is, and I'm thinking about how useful the list could be if done well.  I don't fault you for nominating it, I just think it could be worthy of keeping with a little work.  The thing is, I don't want to make the effort with the article if it's going to be deleted in three days or so.   If it's deleted, maybe the category thing would work. Torc2 22:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete better as a category.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 16:51, 14 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.