Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music publisher (sheet music)


 * 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 no consensus. It is clear that there is no consensus for deletion. All seem to agree that the articles covering this topic need to be reorganized instead. There are many proposals, but not yet clear consensus as to how to proceed. This discussion can continue on the article talk page.  Sandstein  20:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Music publisher (sheet music)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article isn't likely to grow beyond a stub and should be merged to Music publisher (popular music) which should in turn be renamed Music publisher. The term "popular music" is ambiguous. → Lil- ℧niquԐ1 - ( Talk ) - 11:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose deletion and/or merge. There is no reason to suppose that "this article isn't likely to grow beyond a stub" - there are e.g. articles on music publishing in Oxford Music Online and other dictionaries and very many books on the general topic, articles in JSTOR etc. The article should grow beyond a stub, as there is a need on WP for a history of music publishing before the popular era. Merging it with Music publisher (popular music) won't do: the latter is (imo) a poor, unsourced article entirely dedicated to popular music. (The statement that 'the term popular music is ambiguous' is a bit of personal WP:IDONTLIKE by the proposer - there is a sourced artice on the topic in Wikipedia, Popular music - which the proposer can edit if they are usatidifed with it - in any case it has nothing to do with the the viability of this article).--Smerus (talk) 11:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually there isn't any WP:IDONTLIKE to this. Popular Music is interchangeably used to describe pop music as the genre of music but also as more modern music. This is ambiguous to readers. There is merit beyond the stub argument (which is a valid argument by the way) such as the synergy between the two different types of publishing and ultimately it is a similar thing. → Lil- ℧niquԐ1 - ( Talk ) - 19:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: The way this article is written looks like a prose version of a category. I think this article should be merged with Music publisher (popular music) and the whole renamed as Music publishing and then take it from there. The definition of Sheet music on Wikipedia is wrong: it really means "published music" - and I have promised on that article's talk page that I would move it if no one had any objections. But before I do that I have to create an article that is really about sheet music which I have not yet done. - kosboot (talk)
 * Keep – "This article isn't likely to grow beyond a stub" is a) an unfounded assumption; b) not a valid reason to delete. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * comment: see my comment above. → Lil- ℧niquԐ1 - ( Talk ) - 19:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge both Music publisher (sheet music) and Music publisher (popular music) to Music publisher (and make that a content page, instead of the current DAB format). The distinction is somewhat absurd, and POV. Music publishers of sheet music are not music publishers of "un"popular music; music publishers of popular music do publish "sheet music". E.g. Dover Publications is a music publisher providing "popular" classics... in sheet music format. No way to say whether they are primarily a Music publisher (sheet music) or a Music publisher (popular music) – unless when making a POV judgement. Even the most uptight houses in the music publishing industry probably all started by publishing... the popular music of their day. Does anyone think that Anton Diabelli could have been a successful music publisher ... if he had selected music that was "unpopular" in his day for his Vaterländischer Künstlerverein project? Both current articles, Music publisher (sheet music) and Music publisher (popular music), have issues – trying to resolve these on the separate pages seems near impossible, but when they are both merged to Music publisher, such clean-up would likely become considerably less complex. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * comment, thanks, this has summed up my point exactly. → Lil- <b style="color:#1CA9C9">℧niquԐ</b><b style="color:#126180">1</b> <small style="color:#1CA9C9">- ( Talk ) - 19:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Problem is that it set off on the wrong foot, that is as an AfD. "D" means "deletion" and "deletion" means loss – while essentially what is proposed in the OP is a "merge". There are better procedures to propose a merge, see WP:MERGE, e.g. by use of merge type of templates. When talking "deletion", everyone is in state of alert, and truly, I don't think the current content of the Music publisher (sheet music) should all be permanently removed from the encyclopedia. As an AfD, this should be a WP:SNOW keep. Another agreeable solution would be these steps:
 * Move Music publisher (sheet music) → List of music publishers (this would save its edit history)
 * Move Music publisher (popular music) → Music publisher (deleting current insignificant edit history of the latter)
 * Sort content of both pages: remove content for which no reliable source seems apparent; retain a short introduction and the list of publishers in List of music publishers; merge the remainder of its verifiable content to Music publisher; restructure that page so that it covers the entire "music publisher" concept; make sure that both pages contain a prominent link to the other page.
 * Sort redirects: not sure which of the two (or both) of the Music publisher (sheet music) and Music publisher (popular music) redirects should be kept at this point, but if kept they should both redirect to the Music publisher article.
 * ... but again, to set such process in motion, AfD is, among several possibilities, including also a simple WP:SOFIXIT, probably the very worst first step. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Another scheme, that might work even better than what I proposed above:
 * Keep Music publisher (sheet music), and smarten that page up (references etc.)
 * Move Music publisher (popular music) → Music publisher (recordings)
 * Make Music publisher (popular music) redirect to Music publisher, and make that page into a content page, or at least a WP:SIA
 * What made me think about this was Hänssler, which has two divisions:
 * Hänssler-Verlag, which is a Music publisher (sheet music)
 * Hänssler Classic, which is not a Music publisher (sheet music), nor a Music publisher (popular music), but quite clearly a Music publisher (recordings)
 * As for the Hänssler article itself: its opening sentence currently contains the expression "music publishing house" – not linked to anything, that is, neither to Music publisher (sheet music), nor to Music publisher (popular music). It should be linked to Music publisher, and that's why that page should under no circumstance remain a disambiguation page (while linking to that page would then prompt a bot to leave a message on a user page that the term should be linked elsewhere). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Other proposal, partly implemented per WP:BOLD (with a whiff of WP:IAR): I merged the content of both Music publisher (sheet music) and Music publisher (popular music) to Music publisher. The second is already turned into a redirect to that last page. While this is an AfD, preventing to empty the Music publisher (sheet music) page, I just added a soft redirect between the AfD tag and the rest of the content of that page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose (i.e. keep), per the reasons given by Smerus. Toccata quarta (talk) 11:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

 * I mostly agree with User:Francis Schonken, although I would have moved the article to Music publishing to focus on the industry and process rather than the agents involved, and also to form a logical succession to the article History of music publishing. In case you are not aware of it, Grove has probably the best article that speaks about music publishing, listed under Printing and publishing of music. - kosboot (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Couldn't do that without admin powers... posted a CSD tag — we'll see where that takes us. If unsuccessful, →WP:RM (probably best after the dust of this AfD settles). --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Update: the speedy was declined – suggesting to await closure of this AfD. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - I would support merging all three exisiting articles previously mentioned - Music publisher (sheet music), Music publisher (popular music) and Music publisher, into History of music publishing or Music publishing (or splitting them as appopriate between these two articles if there is consensus to maintain them both).--Smerus (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Anyhow, would not support to have a History of music publishing article without having a Music publishing article... (if that is what you meant). The other way around may be possible, but seeing the current content of History of music publishing (which BTW is far from complete), it would be a bit too much to try cram all of that in a Music publishing article, together with the content now at Music publisher.
 * Re. Music publishing vs. Music publisher: that is, afaics, essentially an article titling issue – we can't have both (which would be a WP:CONTENT FORK) – and both would have essentially the same content: we can have one of these two, the other redirecting. Unless the Music publishing version of the name for that content gets enough support in this AfD (so that the AfD closer would mention that preference in their closing report), the thing will need to be taken up after closure of the AfD. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No reason not to have two articles History of music publishing and Music publishing, as far as I can see, if that is what others want - I am not against it.--Smerus (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support the proposals above for a Music Publishing article and History of Music Publishing article. → Lil- <b style="color:#1CA9C9">℧niquԐ</b><b style="color:#126180">1</b> <small style="color:#1CA9C9">- ( Talk ) - 17:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Music publisher or Music publishing: Per Francis Schonken. Best to discuss the contents in any of the articles. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 02:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.