Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sound object


 * 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.  Sandstein  06:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Sound object

 * – ( View AfD View log )

it's a mess, rambling OR essay. The term - as coined by Schaeffer - is for the most part associated with musique concrete, best we redirect to a single paragraph in the musique concrete article instead. Acousmana 13:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. <b style="color:#552586">Ac</b><b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 13:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Question: The article has sources: 8 citations. How is it rambling? How is it essay like? What's the point of making blank assertions that articles need to be deleted without explaining the reasons? People often tell me to respect the process, and the guidelines urge you to explain rather than simply assert, to prove rather than postulate. Hyacinth (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC) What are the personal feelings or opinions inappropriately expressed in the article which includes quotes to sources with different conceptualizations rather a single truth? If there is bias, what is it towards or against? The only bias I see is that it assumes music is of value and music theory is of value to music composition, improvisation, performance, and listening. Hyacinth (talk) 00:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Aren't problems like article structure and number of citations more easily fixed by finding sources to cite and reorganizing the article than by deleting it and starting over with nothing? Without studying music, all the music theory related articles will all seem like random babbling using a bunch of Italian words, a weird system of notation, solfege, letters and numbers for pitches, and a tuning system based on acoustics and mathematics (semitone ratio = 2^(1/12)), but most people view the subject to be inherently subjective, being an art, so not only does it seem obscure, but it's also inherently of questionable worth. Hyacinth (talk) 00:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Why include the paragraph at all? Doesn't the term explain itself, and thus any definition or explanation could be considered rambling? Hyacinth (talk) 00:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NOTCLEANUP. The topic seems notable as it has several hits on Scholar (e.g. ) and there isn't any reason under WP:DEL-REASON I see to delete the article. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Just because a single reader doesn't understand a text, and won't explain how so, doesn't mean that the text is nonsense and, more importantly, that reader saying it's, somehow, nonsense, doesn't help anyone improve anything. Hyacinth (talk) 21:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep A bit of WP:BEFORE would have led the nom to see it is notable:   I also found two scholarly articles that used the concept of sound objects in their titles. We do not look that the state of an article to determine if a subject is or is not notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.