Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minimalistic 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. W.marsh 01:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

List of minimalistic pieces

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is not a list of minimalistic pieces but a list of composers. The subject is also completely open to interpretation. Who’s to say what “minimalistic” means? Even experts conflict in their interpretations of this. This page obviously has no usable content and is original research. S.dedalus 00:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nomination. --S.dedalus 00:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, rename, expand -- There are fairly clear techniques and aesthetic criteria for what makes a piece of music 'Minimalist.' I think this article should be renamed to something like List of notable Minimalist works though. Torc2 00:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is it’s a HUGE movement. There are a potently infinite numbers of pieces. (Especially because minimalist composers write a LOT of music.) Phillip Glass’s music alone would be over a thousand I believe. --S.dedalus 01:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's why I suggested the rename and the notability limitation. True, Glass's factory has pumped out a ton of music, but he's only got a dozen or so that are really historically or aesthetically revolutionary.  The list would be essentially complete with a few representative works from Glass, Steve Reich, LaMonte Young, Terry Riley, Frederic Rzewski, and a couple dozen others.  It would be much smaller than, say List of musical works in unusual time signatures, which survived an AfD vote based on the presumption that the fact a list will be big and will never be complete isn't cause enough for deletion.  Torc2 01:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Another problem, though, is that very few of the composers people know as “minimalist” wanted to be called that. It’s something of an arbitrary designation. --S.dedalus 01:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's really kind of irrelevant though. A lot of the standard, accepted classifications were rejected by their artists, and many were originally intended to be derogatory.  However, that really doesn't make the genres invalid if they're commonly accepted, used and understood by people discussing the subject. Torc2 08:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. It might be possible to create an encyclopedic list of pieces identified by reliable sources as minimalist. But there are no sources here. That makes this original research, where pieces are judged by the whims of editors who may or may not be informed on the subject. Nick Graves 04:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment' - Why not just request sources to be added then? Torc2 08:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My delete recommendation serves the same function as a request for sources. If an editor were to step up and provide sources, I would reconsider my recommendation. Otherwise, the article in its current state is unencyclopedic, and ought to be deleted. Nick Graves 15:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but an AfD gives someone less than five days. Tagging it at least gives people a couple weeks or so.  Torc2 19:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The article has been in existence since 2004. That's enough time for someone to have sourced the content, if they cared to. It's a minor loss if the article is deleted, since it can easily be recreated in better form by someone who has the sources. Torc2, do you have the sources to confirm the information in this article? This sort of unverified stuff tends to just hang around indefinitely without improvement unless someone takes the initiative to open up some books and add sources. Source tags are generally ignored, while an AfD nomination tends to inspire such initiative. Nick Graves 02:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do have sources that would enable me to improve this list. I don't, however, have time in the next two days to improve it.  Realistically though, all one would have to do is add a ref section pointing to any of the major books on minimalism (like this or this) or the Grove and every piece currently on the list would be sufficiently sourced.  Torc2 08:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you plan to source the information, but do not have time to do so presently, I suggest you save a copy of the article, so that it can be restored with proper sourcing later. If you can find a source providing an authoritative definition of what a minimalistic piece is, add sources for at least a couple of pieces identified reliably as minimalistic, and delete the unsourced information in the next day or so, I would see that as a good start toward improving the article, and would provisionally change my recommendation to keep. Nick Graves 16:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Rename to list of key minimalist works or similar, and source. In contrast to the other musical genre lists at AfD today, minimalist does have a fairly clear definition. I don't think it matters that the original composers didn't necessarily brand themselves as minimalist originally. I agree a complete listing would be too large and a set of key works much more useful. The current list does need expert attention, though eg I don't believe Pärt's work is generally considered minimalist. Espresso Addict 13:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right, it doesn't matter in the least what the composers themselves say, because of the NPOV policy. As with the Jazz Standards page, this one could easily be redone as you said, again similar to List of important operas. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 14:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete better as category.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 16:56, 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.