Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mozart: Violin Sonatas K. 301, 304, 376 & 526


 * 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. If List of recordings by Hilary Hahn is created, I'll happily provide any information from the page needed for it. The Bushranger One ping only 05:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Mozart: Violin Sonatas K. 301, 304, 376 & 526

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Back on May 8 2011, using the reasonably common search term Mozart violin sonatas, this article concerning a single CD of four miscellaneous sonatas performed by Hilary Hahn was the first Search suggestion that popped up, rather than the listing I had expected to find. At that time it was then named simply Mozart: Violin Sonatas. To try to avoid this problem I "moved" the page to a new name, adding the specific K. numbers included on the disc. I also left a message on the article's talk page, which has never been responded to. However, even now, as soon as I type in the Search box no more than "Mozart v" this same suggestion continues to pop up as first choice.

The article is nothing but a bare track listing, containing no discussion whatever, or any other kind of useful information -- simply the track names, without even including their timings. It may or may not be a 2005 recording as stated; this is more likely to be the release (P) date.

I'm not opposed in principle to having separate articles on individual recordings, but surely there must be some justification for them, in terms of their notability and how informative the discussion is. Milkunderwood (talk) 18:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  — &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Per nom.  Article is 3 1/2 years old so it isn't getting any better. North8000 (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete If its not deleted, please consider renaming with a disambiguater so its obvious that this is a specific recording.  Something like Mozart: Violin Sonatas K. 301, 304, 376 & 526 (Hilary Hahn album)DavidRF (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I find it hard to put into words WHY classical albums that aren't tied with the work itself, as it were, shouldn't have pages, but they really shouldn't. There's 41 or more listings of albums for each of these concerti at Arkivmusic -- and there's really nothing about Hahn's that makes it special in any way, no matter how well it was received. I imagine the one who made these articles probably did so on good faith, but there's just something so fundamentally wrong with this, though looking at the discussion linked from the article's talk page others disagree. It seems to me that instead of making pointless article pages, especially with redundant track listings, any award/accolade/etc info should be at the artist page. Then, as has been discussed now and again but never really gotten off the ground, a discography section (or separate page if need be) for individual works should be made, with accolades discussed there. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Melodia, your last suggestion here relates to the whole issue of "Notable" or "Selected" Recordings sections in articles, which I agree needs some sort of consensus. Milkunderwood (talk) 00:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename to something with a decent disambiguator. Pittsburgh Live reported that the album was a top ten.  By itself, that may be nothing, but the album verifiably entered the Billboard Charts for Top Album - Classical.  Playbill indicated that the album entered the Billboard chart at number 7.  It's release was covered in Billboard.  Not quite visible in the snippet view, but reviewed by The New Yorker; and also this from The New Yorker.  Behind a pay wall, but reviewed by the [LA Times, St. Louis Post Dispatch.  There's more stuff behind pay walls. -- [[User:Whpq|Whpq]] (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Whpq, unless a definite consensus is arrived at here for deletion, my own thinking is that 1) if the article is renamed as suggested by DavidRF, and 2) if you might undertake to provide not just the awards and distinctions but also a significant discussion along the lines of "Hahn and her accompanist bring to these sonatas of Mozart ... [referenced thoughts from at least two or more reviews that you have found, perhaps in addition to your own, drawing on your own analysis]", then 3) we come to the more general question posed by Melodia as to whether specific classical recordings should be given their own separate articles at all, as opposed to simply being discussed on the Hilary Hahn page. If these first two conditions are met, then I would suggest the page be retained for the time being, and reconsidered at a later date. Milkunderwood (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The reviews are mostly behind pay walls, so I don't have easy access to the sources to improve the article. In any case, the current state of an article is almost always irrelevant to whether it should be kept or not.  As for the issue of whether specific recordings of works should have their own article, the applicable guidance would appear to be WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM for this case.  Based on my interpretation, having coverage in multiple independent reliable sources would meet the inclusion criteria spelled out in both those guidelines.  The multiple reviews of the album represents such coverage and so this particular album meets both inclusion guidelines.  As the current guidelines represent consensus arrived at after some (long) discussion, I'm not sure that this AFD for one particular recording is the appropriate place to decide that classical albums should be merged or noted in the article about the composition rather than in an independent article.  Something like that would need broader discussion; a proposal through the WP:Village Pump would be needed if some editors feel strongly that classical recordings needs some separate criteria added to WP:NALBUM to distinguish from other genres. -- Whpq (talk) 13:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Per nom. This kind of article is redundant and doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. Recording information can be added to articles on the music itself. -- Klein zach  01:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Could you clarify your position for me? Are you agreeing with Melodia and believe that classical recordings should not have individual articles, or do you have some issue with the sources that I've turned up and do not believe that inclusion criteria have been satisified? -- Whpq (talk) 13:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Classical recordings are different. You have scores of violinists spending their careers recording large chunks of the violin repertoire (some skewing towards baroque, others not).  This happens with each generation of performers.  In some cases, the same violinist will record the same piece multiple times.  Hilary Hahn has 34 recordings listed at arkivmusic.com and Mozart's K. 301 has 59 recordings listed at the same site. Yes, it was well-received by critics in 2005, what about old recordings by Grumiaux, Perlman, Shaham, Mutter, Szeryng, Accardo, etc, etc etc.  And 34 and 59 are relatively modest totals compared to other soloists and other pieces.  There's over 200 recordings of the Mendelssohn concerto.  Also, its rare that the "albums" are considered works by themselves.  Its extremely common for the individual works on classical albums to be collected and repackaged in different ways at a later date.  I think the best solution is to have either a List of recordings by Hilary Hahn page or a Hilary Hahn Discography page with a nicely formatted table which could include links to reviews, etc.DavidRF (talk) 17:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as failing WP:GNG. Wikipedia is no more a recordings database than a sports result database. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:49, 26 September 2011 (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.