Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of musical works in time signatures other than 4/4


 * 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.  Singu larity  06:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

List of musical works in time signatures other than 4/4
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Encompassing too many items, grouping loosely associated topics, listcruft.

Fails WP:NOT M2Ys4U ( talk ) 06:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment; Look at Talk:List of musical works in unusual time signatures. I have no opinion about the article, but it appears to have been created to avoid the ongoing disputes there. Masaruemoto 06:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment; I notified them of this issue. VivioFa  teFan  (Talk, Sandbox) 06:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment; I did indeed recreate this article to deal with one of the criticisms on the "unusual time signature" page, i.e. the question of whether time signatures other than 4/4 are unusual or not.  I certainly don't object to the breaking up of the article into smaller articles, perhaps grouped by time signature, but I would maintain that the material assembled here by scores of wikipedia editors over the last few years is far too valuable for the article to be deleted wholesale.  Any constructive suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
 * Delete; an attempt to dodge the user-deletion of List of musical works in unusual time signatures. Refer to section noted by Masaruemoto for debate on the subject. While I support the restoration of the article there, this is a ghost copy and did not need to be created. I am editing my comment to note that the previous article was nominated for deletion about a year ago and the result was a Keep. --Anonymous 121.209.160.15 08:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - The list doesn't include all the works in 6/8 or 12/8. If you're going to include those, you might as well just create an article called List of things. Torc2 08:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This article gives the impression music began in the early 20th century. If we're going to list "musical works written in time signatures other than 4/4", then this page will have to include every waltz ever written. This article seems a highly convoluted way of making the obvious point that 4/4 is the most common time signature in Western popular music of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Delete as indiscriminate and unencyclopaedic. --Folantin 09:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Almost amusing, but no. Not encyclopaedia material. Moreschi Talk 09:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Ridiculous subject for an article.  Nobody who knows anything about music could take this seriously for a second.  You might as well have a list of 'about half the music written in the history of the world'.  This article seems to assume that 'music' means pop songs written in the last forty years, but mainly in the last ten.  It's just dreck. Nick mallory 11:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete somebody apparently put a lot of work into this, but it's just not something an encyclopedia can reasonably cover. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I would like to ask my fellow editors to review Wikipedia's guideline on assuming good faith, and make constructive suggestions for improvement of the article in question.
 * Comment The article in question needs a title change for starters (this is not the original title of the article and the article would never have survived with this title). A list of not-x is very rarely encyclopedic. Please use an RfC to discuss the original material at its place of origin. This article is a repost/copy. Other references on the discussion of the original article, nominated for deletion in 2006 and kept, can be found at Articles for deletion/List of musical works in unusual time signatures. --Anonymous 121.209.160.15 15:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Pointing out that the article is a bad subject, not encyclopedic, and unmaintainable is not assuming bad faith. The contributors had good intentions, just poor judgement. Torc2 18:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete seriously - not in 4/4 that's like ummm most musical works in history from all areas of the world. MLA 15:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Entire premise of the list is based on original research, and the list entries themselves are original research, since no sources are cited. Time signatures 2/2, 3/4 and 6/8 are actually not all that uncommon, even in pop music, so the pool of songs not in 4/4 is so massive as to make a list built from these criteria an indiscriminate collection of information and unencyclopedic. There is no evidence offered as to what makes non-4/4 time signatures collectively notable. Also, this is a content fork of List of musical works in unusual time signatures, which was not deleted, but which I had significantly pared down due to original research and lack of references. This non-4/4 list is an attempt to bypass the discussion about proper application of policy currently taking place at the unusual time signatures list. Nick Graves 16:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please Please Please Delete. Unmaintainable and purposeless.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Too general of a topic for a stand alone list per WP:SAL. Subdolous 21:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete There are far too many songs with signatures besides 4/4. MalwareSmarts 23:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * SPEEDY DELETE 1,2,3,4...5 Major listcruft here. We truly need a WikiLists or something, a collection of lists in wiki format. ViperSnake151 03:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fork of List of musical works in unusual time signatures, which recently had all uncited additions removed. This has generated a lot of discussion. It would appear that all the content of this new article was removed from the other one. -- Flyguy649 talk 04:26, 10 November 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.