Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New German School


 * 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   keep. Wizardman 18:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

New German School

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

Largely un-cited essay (see WP:OR and WP:CITE). Has bibliography, but most "references" are actually footnotes. Aside from sourcing and verifiability issues, the tone is inappropriate for WP: "However, nobody had actually believed, all of Wagner's claims were true"; "Beethoven had reached his hand to the specific German North again...". Contested prod. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The cited sentences "nobody had actually believed..." and "Beethoven had reached his hands..." are quotations from Franz Brendel's speech "Zur Anbahnung einer Verständigung" as being cited in the bibliography. The speech is a famous source, being used by everyone who writes about the "New German School" and wants to be taken earnestly. As far as the user "Delicious carbuncle" doesn't know that, it is not the article's, neither the author's fault, but solely his.


 * Adding some further remarks to the sources, Detlef Altenburg who edited the book "Liszt und die Neudeutsche Schule" (see the bibliography) is worldwide recognized as being the top expert regarding the "New German School". He is professor for musicology at the "Franz Liszt Hochschule" at Weimar and leading member of the German "Franz Liszt Gesellschaft". In Weimar, he has access to tons of still unpublished source materials in the "Goethe- und Schiller Archiv". Much of it was used in essays in the book "Liszt und die Neudeutsche Schule". In other words: Those essays are not only some sources, but among all sources being available today, they are the best and most reliable ones which could possibly be chosen.80.145.136.128 (talk) 15:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please comment on the concerns raised about the article, not my ignorance of relevant famous speeches, which I freely admit. I think you're making my point for me about the unsuitability of this particular article. I don't see any reason why the general material should not be included in WP, but this article needs to be completely rewritten with reference to WP guidelines. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * While it is obvious that I did respond to your objection, you are still putting claims without any reasons. With much patience: Disturbing an editor in such kinds while an article was just commenced is of most unusual kind. Continue doing it that way, it will be recognized as nothing else than a kind of trolling. Redirecting to reality again: When an editor with knowledge and experiance takes the labour of writing an article about a difficult subject, the adnavtage is certainly not at the editor's side, but at Wikipedia's.80.144.72.13 (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep a reasonably good start to an article. DGG (talk) 02:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  20:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I am perplexed as to why this would be nominated for deletion. The subject matter is notable enough and the article clearly has ample verifiable sources with a bibliography and references. Any other problems should be resolved by improving the article and not deleting it. --Bardin (talk) 05:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability was never the issue. Since I nominated it, subsequent additions have been somewhat better referenced. The issues of prose that is rather flowery for an unencylopaedia and WP:OR remain, but it's clear they won't be addressed here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Flowery prose and original research are grounds for improving the article. See WP:DEL and WP:ATD. Given time, this could even turn into a featured article one fine day. --Bardin (talk) 06:35, 29 June 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.