Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography


 * 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 delete. Daniel (talk) 13:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography

 * – ( View AfD View log )

In effect a duplicate page to Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53, created by an editor in the teeth of presently ongoing RfCs at the original article, as a WP:POVFORK. Should be swiftly deleted (and the creator should be made to understand that this sort of behaviour is unacceptable). Smerus (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Is there a speedy category for this? -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53, for obvious reasons. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If so obvious, why did you create it? And by merging it as it stands, you sidestep the ongoing RfC disucssions, which is not acceptable.--Smerus (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I created the discography article at a point in time when *obviously* there was not a single editor objecting against a separate discography article for Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, that is, nor at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music, nor at Talk:Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53 (nor at any other part of that talk page) – on the contrary, the sentiment, expressed by among others at the project page, was that once over 15 recordings, the discography should be split to a separate page (the discography list of Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde currently has 30 recordings). So I was following advice of my colleagues, and initiated the separate discography article. Personally, I do think that a table of 30 recordings at the Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53 article is not excessive, so, if it depended on me, I would merge the full table of recordings (and surrounding text) back to that article ASAP. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Draftify. There is an ongoing RfC about inclusion criteria of the embedded list in the parent article. Since we're having an RfC, it's better not to radically cut down or extend the list there, but there is a chance of it resulting in a short embedded list and a link to this more expansive one. It would be beneficial for this content to be editable for those 30 days. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep and tidy up both this, and the main article accordingly depending on RfCs there (see Finnuerstop above). I am generally in favour of separate discographies where there are more than ten or so entries, our content guidelines prefer flowing text to lists or tables in non-list articles.
 * I have "accepted" the updates from Francis which move in the direction of this article being just a discography, since this will help newcomers to this AfD discuss the disposition of the article as it should appear if kept. As far as I am concerned further updates in that direction will be welcome. --Mirokado (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Completed the previous by now trimming the "sources" list too (according to the current references). Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete These discographies tend to be clunky and are certainly unencyclopedic. Often the recordings included therein are thrown in willy-nilly, making mention of recordings not available commercially and therefore difficult, if not impossible to obtain. No need to turn Wikipedia into the old Schwann Opus catalog anyway. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I read it and respect your opinion, but still disagree. My opinion remains the same: in favor of deletion. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I would say/prefer merge, but frankly given the entrenched positions on recordings amongst some editors, I have no doubt it would just result in more argument. If there was any real way of making a merge work without disruption I would say do that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   14:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – how about "keep for now and decide about merge later"? "Later" meaning: after conclusion of the "discography" RfC at the parent article's talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete clearly seems to be a WP:CONTENTFORK and the fact people cannot agree on its contents is no reason for a fork. If BWV 53 was a long article then there might be a case for a WP:SPINOFF but BWV 53 relatively short so that argument is weaker. If there is a need to merge some of the content back in once the RFC has concluded the article could be userfied. --Salix alba (talk): 12:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete or userfy, clearly unnecessary content fork. —Kusma (t·c) 19:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per Salix alba and Smerus. Aza24 (talk) 07:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per Smerus, Salix alba, Aza24 and others. As created, this is forked content for an alternative version of BWV 57. Although it advertises itself as a discography, the RfC on recordings of BWV 53 is still ongoing. Mathsci (talk) 20:44, 3 March 2021 (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.