Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Normalizing the musical scale


 * 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 Merge/Redirect to Music and mathematics. JERRY talk contribs 04:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Normalizing the musical scale

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article appears to be entirely OR, and contains some misinformation Rracecarr (talk) 05:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * weak delete - Well, it might be somebody's essay or term paper, but it's really not OR. There's nothing new there that isn't covered in a thousand music or physics books.  Granted, it's all unsourced, but nothing there appears to be wrong or appears to new.  (The title does seem to give the impression of OR.)  I just don't see anything there that we don't already cover in other pages, many of which are already in the "See Also" section.  (Musical acoustics, Pitch (music), Frequency, equal temperament, Musical tuning, etc.)  The bulk of this article is summed up as "frequencies increase exponentially, but we hear linearly".  It's a nice article, but seems redundant.Torc2 (talk) 06:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Having read through the article, reviewed GaulArmstrong's other edits(original author), searching for a copyvio (none found), combined with my basic understanding of the musical scale and some reading I feel that this is a truthful article that sources could be found for by an expert and I wouldn't feel confident in doing it myself. The article in question is only a few months old and should be given some time to be linked to and grow. It broaches the subject well with good pictures to demonstrate the article... hell it may even quality for a Good article if it had sources - so sources should be added. Fosnez (talk) 07:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of accuracy or how well written it is or Armstrong's credentials, none of which I would question. It's just a duplication of effort.  The article is essentially a high-level synthesis of material found in other articles.  This falls more into WP:NOT than anything.  Torc2 (talk) 08:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is not just a few months old--it's been around since November 2006, 15 months +. I think it was around even before that, was deleted and recreated, but I don't know how to find the deletion log.Rracecarr (talk) 13:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment maybe someone can make it as an introduction to X article like Introduction to special relativity for Special Relativity for the musically-challenged.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 07:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This looks like an essay, not an encyclopedia article.  The topic is covered more encyclopedically in the articles listed by Torc2.  Powers T 14:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete if it's not an essay, it's OR, it looks like an essay and OR and has not established why it's notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radman622 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * clean up and merge into one or more of the articles listed in its see also section. (Clean up because it's written like a textbook.) Argyriou (talk) 18:13, 15 January 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.