Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Low C


 * 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 and redirect to C (musical note) as per my rationale at Articles for deletion/Deep C. Sandstein (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Low C

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is not a real musical term. Nrswanson (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete the term Low C is not a true musical term. I have a Bachelors degree in Music Education and a Masters in Vocal Pedagogy and I have never heard of this term. I have also looked in three different Music Dictionaries and the term is not mentioned at all.Nrswanson (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The nominator's evidence makes it pretty clear that this is not a widely used musical term. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dhartung and 23skidoo; may not be "official" but seems widely used. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral per Nrswanson; this term apparently has multiple meanings and no standard definition. Arrgh. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, the term is clearly in use and has been for a long time. If we can source that it means something different we should. There are 95 books that talk about the low C on a guitar alone. --Dhartung | Talk 22:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but source as suggested above. Certainly one of the many Google Books hits linked above should suffice. if it's not a "true musical term" that could indicate that it might be a piece of jargon that has evolved over the years. This too is worth noting - with a source. 23skidoo (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Even a cursory search yields hits that reveal the term is in use - also, per the above link for guitar. WP:IDONTKNOWIT doesn't really hold much water.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 22:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment The term Low C when used in instrumentation refers to the lowest C note on that instrument which may fall into a different pitch area depending on the instrument. Low C on a guitar (C3) is not the same as Low C for a flute (C4) or Low C for bassoon (C2). This article is sugesting a standardization of the term Low C which just doesn't exsist. The term really changes from instrument to instrument and is therefore not really a musical term but an easy reference point in instruction. This is why music dictionaries don't include it and neither should wikipedia. But likewise instrumentation books will use terms like low A or low B to refer to the lowest pitches on an instrument so there really is nothing so special about low C to warant an article. If you have a low C page then you would need a Low A, Low, B, all the way up to Low G Sharp page. Its really not a sensible page to have. Nrswanson (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You make a pretty good point, but then isn't this just a content issue? The article could easily be modified the reflect the disparity in the term.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 00:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In a way it is a content issue but then we get to the issue of notability. What makes low C special as opposed to low A, low B, low D, low E, low F sharp, etc. ? See my point. When properly understood, low C really doesn't make a great article. The concept of the term "low" used in instrumentation could easily be talked about on the Pitch (music) wikipedia article. Also I don't think the definition given right now is at all accurate but completely made up so I don't think there is a disparity in understanding. There is no universal association between the term low C and C3. Not even within vocal music is there such an association as I have several vocal pedagogy books that define low C for say baritones as C3 and low C for sopranos as C4. Nrswanson (talk) 00:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Term is not included in Glossary of musical terminology--Kleinzach (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * but that's just a WP article, which doesn't establish notability or non-notability. DGG (talk) 02:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete unless multiple non-trivial third party publications can be provided to support the article. (jarbarf) (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to C (musical note). It will get some hits in search, so just send it over to that article.  Grsz  ' 11 ' 15:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect should go to Pitch (music), I think.  Scientific pitch notation and Helmholtz pitch notation have some discussion too. Sparafucil (talk) 23:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and write the article to explain it properly. The point of WP is to provide information, and this seems like something about which information needs to be provided. DGG (talk) 02:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment There are already other articles that cover this topic so why keep this article?Grsz11 correctly pointed out C (musical note) which seems to be the most logical place to redirect this page in my opinion.Nrswanson (talk) 03:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I have changed the definition of this term to be accurate. I still think it should be deleted because it does not meet the notability requirements of a wikipedia article.Nrswanson (talk) 04:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Dravecky (talk) 05:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * delete as hopelessly relative, per nom. This article presently reads: "the term Low C is used to refer to the lowest C note in the range of a given instrument or voice type." Okay, if that is meaningful in any way, then we should have an article Rear right fender, with the following text: "The term rear right fender is used to refer to the rearmost rightmost fender on the body of a given model of car." AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:16, 31 March 2008 (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.