Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of musical works in unusual time signatures


 * 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 El Keepo Gigante - crz crztalk 04:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

List of musical works in unusual time signatures

 * This is an unmaintainable list, that I don't think will ever be complete. It is 89KB and there is no good way to make it complete. Please delete. Georgia guy 01:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, who defines "unusual"? I think 6/8 is unusual, myself. -Amarkov blahedits 01:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This is like trying to make a list of all paperback books. Stebbins 01:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OMFG. It's huge and probably took a lot of work... but delete per nom. Cbrown1023 01:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment and Delete. Wow, all these edit conflicts!  This nomination was not put up correctly, so I fixed it.  Delete per Wikipedia is not an indiscrimanate collection of information. Green451 01:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - This list is really useful. Since it's quite long, I suggest breaking it into smaller articles based on the metre of each category. - Richardcavell 01:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It may be useful, but it's subjective what constitutes an unusual time signature, so how do you suggest avoiding POV violations? -Amarkov blahedits 01:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * comment; reading the Time signature article it seems to indicate that an unusual time signature wouldn't be subjective at all. wtfunkymonkey 02:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as indiscriminate collection of information. shotwell 01:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Richardcavell. Should be broken up into smaller articles. "Unusual time signature" is a common Western designation for meters not divisible by 2 or 3; the list should be confined to Western music, in the most broadly defined terms (so, for instance, rock music from anywhere in the world would apply, but recordings of West African drumming would not). Chubbles1212 02:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment and Keep. The lead of the article says "examples of musical compositions." Rather than try to be exhaustive, this list should include only a selection of notable songs. That might be something useful and worth keeping. Stebbins 02:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep as something useful in a format that I don't believe is available anywhere else. Newyorkbrad 03:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep this article, it is amazing. It actually has helped me sometimes.  that Sufjan Stevens with his wacky time signatures.  Seriously though, I actually looked for a list like this.  I googled "list of ridiculously bizarre time signatures", and found this page.  Actually this is one of my favorite wikipedia pages.  Most articles are never going to be complete, theres always more stuff to learn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonelsandersfc (talk • contribs)
 * Delete in its current form it is unmaintainable. Remember, Telephone Directories are VERY useful, and utility is NOT a criteria for an article at wikipedia.  I would have no problem if this article reappeared as individual lists for specific smaller articles, for each specific time signature as a list, which would each be more useful and more manageable. --Jayron 32  04:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Shotwell. Sr13 05:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Reluctantly, I can't see this being anything other than a delete in its current form, which is a shame because I'll admit it is both useful and interesting. A possible compromise might be to split it into separate articles for individual time signatures: though "unusual" may be a POV term, articles such as List of musical works in 5/4 or 5/8 time might at least save some of this in usable, non-POV form, so I'd prefer splitting it into these if possible, though that still may fall foul of deletionist views. FWIW, in its current form it could also get extremely long - I keep a similar list offline myself, and there is very little cvorrelation between the two in terms of what tracks are listed. From this, I suspect that the current list could grow to several times its current size. Grutness...wha?  05:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC) (now playing, Pete Shelley, "I generate a feeling" - 13/8 time)
 * Keep BlueLotas 06:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I stressed over this decision, but I think that although the term "unusual" sounds very POV it is still a useful list. I think it could be of use to people interested in the subject, and unlikely to be found anywhere outside wikipedia in this form (unlike information on schools or a phone book for instance). I suggest adding the qualification that to be included in the list the artist or song must have or be worthy of a seperate wikipedia article. Thus all notability criteria would then be followed. Viridae Talk 10:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Chubbles' comments above. Its current large state doesn't mean it can't be broken into smaller pieces (per time signature). Therefore the list can be fixed so it's no longer unmaintainable without deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 11:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd delete - at 89 KB and based on the ambiguity of the criteria for inclusion - anything other than 4/4 and 2/2 could be on it. As Mgm said, I'd also like to see it broken up by time signature - just because it has crappy formatting doesn't mean it's beyond hope. ST47 Talk 12:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and split into separate articles, one for each timing. That addresses the concern about "unusual" being arbitrary. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete "Oh no, not again!" What is unusual?  Who defines what is unusual with respect to a particular genre?  Is there systemic bias in the genres represented?  Or the dates?  Look how over-represented the last decade is within the list.  Do we have reliable sources for the time signatures of the more modern pieces, which are typically not published as sheet music?  Far More Blue and Far More Drums are the same piece, essentially, why two entries?  What about movements within other works, such as In Freezing Winter Night from Britten's Ceremony of Carols?  Is there an objective definition of what constitutes an unusual time signature in the context of a given genre, or is this just an end-run around the removal of articles like the list of songs in triple metre?  And as Newyorkbrad says, "a format that I don't believe is available anywhere else" - which is what we call original research.  WP:INTERESTING and WP:USEFUL do not, I'm afraid, trump policy. Guy (Help!) 17:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Split into separate articles as per Samsara. -Toptomcat 18:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That would be an "interesting" choice, since we already deleted articles for "list of songs in foo metre" due to the fact that the selection of an individual metre is arbitrary, the lists are potentially vast, and almost every inclusion from the last couple of decades is straight OR since they are not published in sheet music. Guy (Help!) 18:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep and split: The designation "unusual" is sound enough; it's a better title than "list of pieces in metres that are not 2/4 3/4 or 4/4" or whatever. There are problems with this article (the size can be addressed by splitting any sections that are large) such as its attractiveness as a spam target, but I don't see why it should be deleted. The information is probably useful to some people. - Rainwarrior 18:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What will we use for sources for the majority of entries, those after about 1990 which aree not published on sheet music? Guy (Help!) 18:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Why would recordings themselves not be valid sources? - Rainwarrior 19:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete: What is unusual? How can this be verified? Is this just original research? How can this ever be completed, I'm assuming there are thousands of pieces in a certain time signature. -- aviper2k7 19:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If you check the sourcing, you'll see how it can be verified, which will confirm that it's not original research (not all of it anyhow, so it's not AfD's business). WilyD 22:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Articles for deletion/List of songs with particularly long titles <-- Worth looking at. Unfortunately, this list was deleted some months later, and I can't find any further debate about it. A pity, since I used that list several times for information... The parallel here is that the longtitle list consisted of "original research" in that the authors had to count the number of words in the song titles rather than use verified sources stating that the titles were long. Here, the authors are counting the number of beats in a measure rather than finding sources that state that the song is in an irregular meter. Surely this isn't reasonably considered original research? Chubbles1212 20:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Many contemporary composers and song writers do not publish their sheet music. Unless these artists explicitly tell what their time signatures were in some other published context, it is original research to attempt to deduce the time signatures they used. --Iamunknown 20:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment All it is in terms of reaserch is citing a primary rather than a secondary source- a song, rather than someone talking about a song. This acceptable in the vast majority of reaserch methodologies- why Wikipedia seems so resistant to it is something that has long puzzled me. -Toptomcat 22:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, though it should probably be split to keep it from being overlong. It contains useful information, is verifiable with a little trouble, will never be complete but that's the way it is with some lists. (Shouldn't the title be "asymmetric time signatures" rather than the somewhat POV "unusual"?)  Antandrus  (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Obvious Keep - at least one entry is well sourced - pruning of unsourced entries of the list is not a concern for AfD. This article is incomplete, and likely to remain so is a terrible criterion for deletion.  It'd result in the deletion of most articles on wikipedia.  Nor is maintaining this article is a lot of work a good argument.  The article is being maintained - if someone wants to put in the time and effort to create a good article, it's hardly the wiki spirit to say "You're working too hard - stop building such a good encyclopaedia".   In the end, the article is sourced and it is encyclopaedic.  It fits well with WP:LISTS.  It's in good shape.  There's absolutely zero reason to delete it. WilyD 22:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and split. Editors should then cull unsourced and non-notable works. Judging from Time signature, this sort of list probably does have a place in an encyclopedia if cleaned up, particularly as relating to concert music. There are WP:OR problems with the mass of unsourced modern entries, but as pointed out, deleting these is an editorial matter. Sandstein 22:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Very interesting and useful page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18 hours (talk • contribs)
 * Keep It seems from Time signature that there is an accepted non-original-research definition of "unusual time signature". The concerns about the length of the list can be dealt with by pruning it down to notable works only (i.e. works with their own article). Demiurge 00:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. "Unusual" can certainly be defined in relation to a certain genre of music.  I'm glad that this nomination has alerted me to the existence of this article, as I would have otherwise created it myself. —Psychonaut 13:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Throatybeard 15:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC) This page is a tremendous resource. Reformat it as necessary, but definitely keep all this information on Wiki.
 * Delete unusual is a subjective term. Rever e ndG 23:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep If unusual is the problem, then use the word uncommon instead.
 * Keep, but as-is this is a mess. Should be pruned back significantly to include only those works that are inherently notable in themselves, i.e. where multiple independent third-party articles / reviews have been written about the song or composition itself. Fairsing 19:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The list is a useful resource. Change unusual to uncommon and break it into smaller entries if necessary, but the content should remain. Character 17:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Useful, totally verifiable (you don't need sheet music to be able to tell if a song is in 4/4 time or not!). Would prefer to see it broken down into specific meters, because of the POV connotations of "unusual." | Mr. Darcy talk 20:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete The purpose of this list would be better would be better served with an article explaining how different time signatures become standardized in different areas and times and why some composers chose to use time signatures out of the norm. Bjart 18:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Needs work but not unfixable. BotleySmith 20:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Although hard to maintain and include each song with an unusual time signature, I ended up stumbling on this page trying to find out what time signature a song was in, so it was at least beneficial to me. kirkio 01:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but split, leaving a main page referring to all the sub-pages. Narssarssuaq 04:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm a musician who finds uncommon time signatures very interesting and this list has been extremely helpful to me. I think the idea of breaking it up into smaller articles is a good idea. Junta889 06:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep; I found it helpful, but just considering the page length, split if necessary. (My first AfD vote... and it's positive! Yay! :-D) --3M163//Complete Geek 08:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think it's wonderful Iliff 16:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Very helpful, and obviously a massive amount of time and effort was put into this.
 * 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.