Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of neoclassical 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. @pple complain 16:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

List of neoclassical pieces

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is not a list of neoclassical pieces but a list of composers. The subject is also completely open to interpretation. Who’s to say what “neoclassical” means? Even experts conflict in their interpretations of this. This page obviously has no usable content and is original research. S.dedalus 23:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nomination. --S.dedalus 23:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Torc2 00:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep and rename - Now that I think about it, "Neoclassical" does have a somewhat defined set of aesthetic and historical criteria. Experts might disagree on specific works, but I think there's enough commonality to make it useful as a topic.  I'd suggest renaming it List of notable Neoclassical works. Torc2 00:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Except that it is impossible to unequivocally classify which music, even with in a single composers music, is neoclassical. It’s like trying to make a list of existential books. Is Stravinsky’s Symphony of Psalms neoclassical? Probably, but what about Les Noces or Oedipus rex or the Violin Concerto. How about Petrushka? You see any attempt at classifying these pieces, even using sources, would have to include some POV. --S.dedalus 00:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment If you're just saying the list will always be incomplete and at least partially subjective, the AfD discussion of List of musical works in unusual time signatures pretty much establishes the a precedent that reason isn't sufficient for deletion. 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. I mean, if we're really going to argue that genres are worthless and any individual piece could be debated as to whether or not it's "really neoclassical," why do we have an article on Neoclassicism (music) at all?  Torc2 09:17, 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 19:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So why not just tag it with the refimprove or unreferenced tags and give users a chance to add sources? Torc2 03:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete The classification is inadequately specified. An article like this would perhaps be possible if an authoritative source was followed--or if several were, criteria were firmly established, and the citations given. The way to do this properly needs to be considered more carefully. The relevant workgroup should discuss it.   DGG (talk) 02:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. No sources, original research. A list built from authoritative sources would be fine, but this list does not fulfill that. Nick Graves 04:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. For once I agree: this is a short unreferenced list where only some of the items are generally agreed to be neoclassical. A recreation would need to be clearly based on expert sources, and possibly explicitly state that it was a selected list of works considered major examples of the movement by experts. Espresso Addict 12:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Further comment. I would not be opposed to a merge per Mandsford. Espresso Addict 15:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into Neoclassicism (music) Article is a list of purportedly neoclassical pieces and is grouped by composer, needs to return to a place where it is explained Mandsford 13:48, 13 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.