Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nocturne in G Minor


 * 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. John254 03:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Nocturne in G Minor

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This seems a bit non-notable to me. If we have an article about this nocturne, shouldn't all Chopin's nocturnes have articles? (Maybe instead of deleting, we could merge the relevant information into articles which deal with Chopin's music.) &mdash; $PЯINGrαgђ  04:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions.   -- SkierRMH 04:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge a quick look at List of compositions by Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric Chopin shows that several of his works do have individual articles. I personally wouldn't object to a merge into a single article on Chopin's works, but I am not sure of the best way to merge.  FrozenPurpleCube 06:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems at least weakly notable. I figure we can probably manage to write at least a decent-length article on it; one guy managed to write a 23-page paper on it and get it published in an academic journal, for example. cab 07:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Deleting this article would also be a ground for deleting other articles about other notable musicians' equally notable keyboard pieces. (Examples: J. S. Bach's the Well-tempered Clavier; some of Mozart's and Beethoven's sonatas; Liszt's Transcendental Etudes and Hungarian Rhapsodies; and, for the sake of discussion (although it isn't a keyboard piece), maybe even Samuel Barber's Adagio for Strings). These pieces, as well as others, have been the subject of numerous musicological treatises and studies, and have received much scholarly attention that they are in itself considered encyclopedic. On a performer's point of view, information about these articles would also provide valuable information about the history of the piece, notable performances (which may be used as points of comparison), and maybe even a discussion of the music itself. However, in this nocturne's case, it needs more sourced information to make it at par with the other articles, if ever. So I would also say, expand.--- Tito Pao 08:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In fact, all of Beethoven's sonatas have articles. I see no reason we can't do the same for Chopin. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 20:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Pretty much any of Chopin's compositions could support an article, I'd say; if we don't have articles on each, it's because nobody's gotten around to writing them yet.  - Smerdis of Tlön 15:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep of course. How could anything by Chopin FAIL to be notable? Jcuk 21:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep pending proper references I don't have a problem with Chopin works being notable in principle. However, this particular article appears to have no actual references to establish notability or to verify any of the biographical background information about the piece. It also has some unverified/unverifiable "weasel phrases" like "The piece is one of Chopin's most famous noctures, and its playability has made it a favourite amongst students and masters alike. Both Anton Rubinstein and Arthur Rubenstein are acclaimed performers of this piece." There are no citations here, so the article hasn't verified that the piece is, indeed, "one of the most famous" or "accliamed by Rubinstein and Rubinstein".
 * Thus my recommendation would be to keep, but that is contingent on the article providing proper referencing. If the references never improve, I would eventually have to recommend deletion and redirect to an appropriate Chopin related article. Dugwiki 22:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * FYI, I went ahead and added an unreferenced tag, since the only reference is the sheet music itself. The article needs references for the biographical information and opinions in its text. Dugwiki 18:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a frequent concert pianist piece and there's too much subject-specific information here to be merged to the Frederic Chopin article. If there was an article entitled Nocturnes Op. 15 (Chopin) (he wrote 3 in this series), I'd consider a merge there.  --Oakshade 03:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you or I could create that article. (I never would have thought of it myself.) &mdash; $PЯINGrαgђ  21:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to clarify that my current concern is that the subject specific information in the article isn't referenced. The lack of references really does need to be ultimately corrected or it might eventually lead to the article being merged (if it turned out a lot of the article is either editorial opinion or unverifiable). Dugwiki 21:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Delete an article on a staple of the piano repertoire for going on 200 years? No. Rewrite it, source it, and merge or re-name it. It would probably work best as one section in an article on Chopin's Nocturnes, or just the Opus 15, as Oakshade says above. But if it's kept as a separate article, shouldn't the title be something like "Chopin's nocturne in g minor?" The composer's name to differentiate it from nocturnes in g-minor by any other composer, and lower-case g for the minor key. Dekkappai 19:35, 22 February 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.