Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/October (Concert Band)


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 04:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

October (Concert Band)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Not notable. Written as a class paper and desiring Wikipedia editors to offer constructive comments! Student7 (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Extensive original research and seems like a high school teacher's guide. …Grayshi  talk ■ my contribs 20:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep You complain about the quality of the article - but that's not what's at stake here.  lists a serious analysis of this piece as having been published in their volume 10 (2003).  There are LOTS of references to it being played by various people.  I suspect that it probably IS notable. (I'm not precisely sure what the criteria are for this kind of music.) David V Houston (talk) 21:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral. This piece may possibly be notable enough to justify having an article about it. However, it needs to be supported by reliable, independent sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have decided to change my mind and recommend keeping this article. I think it is likely that the subject is notable enough to justify having an article about this composition. I have decided to take a more open-minded viewpoint regarding the article in order to be more welcoming to new editors. That said, though, my "keep" recommendation does not mean that I recommend leaving all or much of the content in the article if it remains unsourced. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral for now [see below] - First, incredibly (but also unsurprisingly) WP:MUSIC does not list any criteria to help editors discover the notability of musical works that are not "modern (20th or 21st century) popular music songs" (which means, technically, that Symphony No. 5 (Beethoven) could be deleted...). Second, the work is most assuredly notable in wind band circles and is played widely (almost to death) by many wind bands—they just happen to been school bands mostly since the work is aimed at their level...  Third, the work has also been arranged for other ensembles such as brass band and string orchestra: some of these arrangements might be notable, also.  The article is well written but lacks sources: the article should probably be stubbed unless the sources are found rather than deleted.  I'll dig around further, though, to see what surfaces from the hidden depths of the 'net before committing either way  --Jubilee♫ clipman  02:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that musical works other than popular music songs are simply not covered in WP:MUSIC, meaning that the guideline doesn't say under what circumstances they should be kept or deleted. But in any case, Symphony No. 5 (Beethoven) should be safe anyway due to chart performance. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL! Actually, that article stays because it clearly passes GNG.  OTOH, articles on lesser known classical works might struggle to pass...  Still not sure about this article, yet: problem is, I can't source it which pretty much starts to drive the nails in, I guess...  --Jubilee♫ clipman  22:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * One problem is that User:Panzak7 is writing this for a class. If someone else takes the effort to supply all or most of the citations that this article needs, then that could affect Panzak7's grade, since the instructor might say, "Well, I see you wrote the text, but you didn't cite any of the facts in the text, and some other Wikipedia editors added all the citations before you got around to supplying them yourself. You should have added the citations as you were writing so I could see that you actually did the research yourself." (Disclaimer: I don't actually know how the instructor would grade the assignment in such a case.) Thus, the best solution would be for Panzak7 to fill in the citations needed to make this a decent article as soon as possible. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I HAVE TO WRITE THIS FOR A CLASS. IN THREE WEEKS, I DO NOT CARE AT ALL AT ALL AT ALL AT ALL WHAT HAPPENS TO THIS ARTICLE. THIS IS MY FIRST ARTICLE AND I AM STILL WORKING ON IT. LEAVE ME ALONE FOR THREE WEEKS; THAT'S ALL I ASK!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Panzak7 (talk) 03:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panzak7 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you, or somebody else, will have to get the article into better shape by 23 April (when this Articles for Deletion discussion is scheduled to close) in order to make sure it doesn't get deleted before the three week deadline. I recommend keeping a copy of the content for yourself elsewhere so that, if it does get deleted, you will at least be able to show your teacher what you had written before it was deleted. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please tell you teacher that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a repository for student assignments. This may or may not be kept as an encyclopedia article, but whatever happens it is no reflection on the quality of your assignment, so it would be extremely unfair if your teacher was to assess you on the basis of whether it is kept or deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that Panzak7 is quite following the assignment correctly: School and university projects/Shaping the Modern World SP2010. The creation of new articles is Exercise 2 and the assessors are fully aware of WPs standards.  Panzak7 may need to re-read that section  --Jubilee♫ clipman  22:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Delete (see comments below for reasons). The fact that WP:MUSIC does not specifically make reference to non-"pop music" articles suggests we should err on the side of caution and I don't really see why an article shouldn't exist if the piece can be shown to be genuinely notable amongst musicians, even if it is primarily used as a teaching tool. However, the article as is, despite being extensive needs significant work to properly wiki-fy it.
 * 1. Firstly, there is nothing in the article to indicate that this piece is significantly more notable than a large number of other works composed for student musicians;
 * 2. Secondly, the complete lack of inline citations (where practical) make the article quite unwieldy and do suggest, though by no means guarantee, original research;
 * 3. Thirdly, there seems to me to be a large number of weasel words, particularly in sections like this one and even more so here.
 * 4. There are also a number of sections, specifically 7, 8 and 9 that seem much more appropriate to a school textbook than an encyclopaedia article and don't really have anything directly to do with the piece itself. I think these just need to be removed.
 * 5. Finally, since the article is so long, it would be extremely useful to have excerpts from the piece to highlight the specific sections discussed.

Also Panzak, please turn off the caps, they're not going to win anyone over! Fenix down (talk) 14:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - The creator has admitted that this page is being used for a class assignment and that he/she doesn't even care for the article. In that case it would violate WP:NOT and WP:NOTWEBHOST. So even if the article was perfectly written and 100% up to en.wiki standards, it would still be a bit dodgy to keep the article considering that Wikipedia's server space is being used for a homework assignment. …Grayshi  talk ■ my contribs 20:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. If this article article and its subject (about which I am offering no opinion at the moment) meet our standards then it should be kept. The reason for the article's creation is immaterial. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fully agree: articles are created for all sorts of strange reasons but if they meet our standards they stay. WP:HEY applies here, IMO --Jubilee♫ clipman  22:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No vote here for now, but this song is played to death. WP:OR aside, there are dedicated pages for school assignments. Even if the author doesn't like writing or want to write said article, if consensus says it meets notability guidelines there is nothing wrong with it. is in charge of the project, and seems very fluent in policy and the such. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs/Vote! 04:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I am the instructor in the course in question. The student writing this article was required to clear the topic with me ahead of time. I did some checking on the piece myself, and learned that it was played frequently in high school concert band performances.  The composer is the subject of a Wikipedia article.  The piece appears on at least one list. So I gave her the go ahead.  The article is appropriately linked to the composer and to other mentions of it in wikipedia. and is linked back to the article.  I have read the article, and it is well done content; the student is adding citations and such, but had to learn how to do it.  This is, as are most (many/all) articles in wikipedia, a work in progress, and I suggest we support  ' s efforts, rather than undermine them.  I suspect that the student does care what happens to the article after the class, but as of now, I'd like to see some gentle collaboration and assistance, the kind of wikipedia effort I have grown accustomed to receiving.  Please extend to Panzak the same courtesy. I am well aware of the student's contributions to the article, and if someone wants to help her with sources and citations, I will watch that collaboration via the talk page and the article history. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But the notability of the subject is questionable and judging from the way it's written, seems to be filled with original research. And after reading the article I've found it to be a high school teacher's guide with hardly any encyclopedic content. At the very least it would require a major rewrite to become encyclopedic. …Grayshi  talk ■ my contribs 16:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I had initially suggested erring on the side of caution, because I couldn't see anything in WP:MUSIC that specifically discussed non-popular music. However, having given it more consideration, I don't really think that the piece itself has been shown to be any more significant than any of the other numerous pieces the composer has written. As such, I think that we should consider that the sentence, "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article" from WP:MUSIC can be appropriately applied to instrumental composition too, and as such, notability must be pretty much undeniable to warrant an article. In this way, any brief comments that may be pertinant can be made in the composer's article.


 * In addition I would advise that when your students are considering writing an article that they discuss it with the relevant wiki-project rather than simply with you. I'm sure you are providing valuable guidance, but by discussing whether a potentially unnotable article should be created with the relevant wiki-project, you can obtain consensus avoiding any notability issues. Furthermore, a lot of the additional complaints here seem to be along the lines of WP:OR. This could be avoided if the article was first written in a user page. There won't be such a problem with people jumping all over uncited remarks and it allows new users not only time to learn in relative safety but also allows them to refer the article to the relevant wiki-project for comment as it is constructed without others necessarily interfering in the actual production. Obviously everyone is entitled to produce articles, but it seems to me this is the best way of establishing consensus as the article progresses and creating a more informal atmosphere for editing. Fenix down (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would note that the instructor, User:Auntieruth55, told Panzak7 (on the talk page) that she needed to add citations to the article, and explained how to use the format to do that, and added a reflist template to the article so the references would show up correctly. That was six days ago. Since then, Panzak7 has edited the article and added a bibliography, but the article still has no proper citations to support any of its factual claims about this musical piece. I think it is likely that Panzak7 knows more about this composition "October" than anyone else posting in this discussion, or at least she has read more articles and books about it than almost any of us. I don't have any of the sources she used at hand, and she probably does. Therefore, Panzak7 is the editor who should take responsibility for adding the citations. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Aside from the problems with the article WP:SS, WP:SYNTH and, frankly WP:TRIVIA, this is clearly, per WP:MUSIC, unnotable. School assignment or not, material needs to meet GNG and this falls well short. Eusebeus (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Userfy - since this article is intended as part of an editor's class project, then the article should be moved to that editor's userspace so that they can continue to work on it to bring it up to WP's standards of verifiability and notability. Several constructive suggestions have been made above and several useful links have been supplied as pointers to improvement.  I am also a little worried by the tone of some of the above which seems somewhat WP:BITEy at times...  Could people please WP:AFG a little more often during these class projects?  --Jubilee♫ clipman  18:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep A notable enough piece to be played in schools everywhere. Use common sense.  The policies must be followed, and it is verifiable, no one doubting its a real thing.  The guidelines are just suggestions, they changing constantly over the years, nothing you have to actual follow.   D r e a m Focus  05:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Google news search for the composers name and the name of the piece, and you get plenty of results. Deseret News - NewsBank - Mar 15, 2004, says Eric Whitacre's "October," for example, were both fresh, new works, written within just the past few years.  It along with someone else's bit, were called fresh, and got mentioned.  There are 107 results for "Eric Whitacre" AND "October".   D r e a m Focus  05:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment the thing is Dreamfocus, is that these references and google news hits only indicate that exists, they don't do anything to substatiate notability. Of the Google News hits, exactly which ones indicate notability. As I have already stated, WP:MUSIC clearly indicates that "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article". Aside from the WP:OR and WP:WEASEL issues with the page, together with referencing, which could all easily be solved simply by moving it to the creator's user page and working on it there, the only issue here is notability. Say we started the article from scratch again and went through the article wizard, as far as I can see, when we get here: Article_wizard/Musical_notability, we'd be in trouble, since:


 * I see no indication that the piece has won a major award;
 * It is not an official anthem of anywhere/anything;
 * I do not see how, as a piece specifically aimed at student musicians, how it can be considered a musical standard (or even that there has been sufficient time since its composition to alow it to be so considered, and;
 * It does not have a documented history of more than 50 years.


 * It certainly seems like this piece is played by a considerable number of people, but I don't see anywhere in the article or in the discussion for deletion how the piece's inherent notability is such that it circumvents the notion within WP:MUSIC that most songs do not rise to a level of notability where they warrant an individual article. Fenix down (talk) 12:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You are correct, Fenix down. "Verifiability, not truth"...  all the notability guidelines cite WP:V as the policy-of-policies (as it were) for articles in article space.  However, the criteria for inclusion in user space are more lenient and those pages can be NOINDEXED.  Hence my Userfy !vote  --Jubilee♫ clipman  14:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * In response to DreamFocus, I would note that most of the statements in this article are not likely to be sourceable to most of the sources found via a Google News search, and most of the sources we can find via a Google News search are unlikely to provide significant information to support this article. For example, this article states, "October is a great piece to do with high school band students because it has the potential to teach a number of valuable lessons to students who have already had a significant amount of experience in band." I don't know where we can source that from. On the other hand, I saw one article in the Google News search that mentioned that the Presbyterian College concert band performed "October" in 2009, but that's not the sort of thing we would mention in a Wikipedia article; we wouldn't list every performance of a musical composition in an article about it. My objection is not so much to the idea of having an article about Whitacre's "October", but to having this particular original research-laden article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have offered my services to Panzak7 and I added the rescue template to the article. I'll try to work on it tonight and report back --Jubilee♫ clipman 15:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep but Trim OR. The piece is marginally notable, but the article seems way out of proportion relative to the coverage it has received. I suspect part of the problem is that the students in this school project must generate articles with a minimum length of at least 50KB or else they probably get an unfavorable grade. This encourages additions of lists, trivia, OR, etc. In future assignments, it might be better to stress quality over quantity. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep A few new references have been added, and the first one establishes notability, just. The article needs a lot of clean-up, but rises above deletion at this point.  Quality and notability must remain separate issues. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 21:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Panzak7 has added a huge number of inline citations and new references. These may well verify notability: any one have those works and able to check?  --Jubilee♫ clipman  00:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I note that some of the inline citations seem to be to works that couldn't refer to this particular composition. For example, "With October, however, the moving lines are played by everyone in the ensemble; this will keep the students engaged throughout the time spent working on the piece" is cited to a book published in 1970, 30 years before October was written. I suspect that the book does contain some statement relevant to this sentence (along the lines of "students will be more engaged if the composition's moving lines are played by the entire ensemble") but with no direct relationship to October, whose composer was not even born until 1970. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Virtually everything after the initial paragraph violates WP:NOR and WP:NOTHOWTO. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I hadn't actually noticed the dates of publication. That's a good point.  They can't even make passing mentions...  Userfication still seems the best option, though, so that Panzak can retain her work and present it for assessment  --Jubilee♫ clipman  17:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete News search yields nothing and a general search yields stuff that has nothing to do with the article or the article's subject in general.  Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 02:26, 24 April 2010 (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.