Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tierkreis (Stockhausen)


 * 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. Apparent WP:POINT nomination, will look into it.  Sandstein  17:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Tierkreis (Stockhausen)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Seems not to be notable. Could always be merged if there is support for this article not to be deleted. Rob Riv (talk) 11:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Don't understand the nom. Well-known piece by very famous composer. Could do with expansion and a few inline sources, but apart from that ... FatherJack92 (talk) 13:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, strongly. Well referenced article about a piece by a well known composer from the Age of Charlatans.  Not sure what's up with this nomination, either.  The music sounds dreadful, but that was the kind of effect they liked back in the Dark Ages. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Referenced, ample notability. Needs improving, not deleting. WilliamH (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find any specific guidelines regarding composition notability, and obviously there is a great distinction from song notability that needs to be made, this I accept. However the sources all seem to be about the artist himself, and not at a greater picture of the composition's impact etc. It doesn't seem to be linked to by many articles, most seem to be user pages from this AfD. Applying the guidelines as well as possible, I see no reason why cannot be merged into the main article or his [List of compisitionsh|List_of_compositions_by_Karlheinz_Stockhausen] at best. I just don't see how this can warrant its own page, how is it distinct specifically from other compositions that are without pages? Rob Riv (talk) 16:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thinking about this, we could apply the Pokémon Test here, as there shouldn't be a page for every single composition unless they are as distinctive as Pikachu. Please, set me right if I'm in the wrong here though. Rob Riv (talk) 16:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict): In regard to some of the references, Kompositorische Tendenzen bei Karlheinz Stockhausen seit 1965 translates as Compositional Tendencies of Karlheinz Stockhausen since 1965, and Tierkreis: Einführung und Hinweise zur praktischen Aufführung translates as "Tierkreis: Introduction and details for practical performance." Neither Pokémon or compositions are inherently notable, but this certainly has coverage, and a Google Scholar search is quite fruitful. WilliamH (talk) 17:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough. To what extent can we give any composition its own article though? Perhaps I'm using this article to demonstrate a bigger point. Rob Riv (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Generally, it isn't a good idea to nominate articles for deletion to make a point. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. There is no question about the notability of this composition: it is Stockhausen's most popular, most-often performed and recorded piece. I agree with FatherJack92 that this article needs expanding, but I have only got two hands. Merging this into the list of Stockhausen compositions is not a good idea, since that would imply the other articles on specific Stockhausen works (Gruppen, Hymnen, Amour, Mikrophonie I & II, Licht, Kontakte, Gesang der Jünglinge, Aus den sieben Tagen, Helicopter String Quartet, Kreuzspiel, Klavierstücke I–XIX, Kontra-Punkte, Stimmung, Zyklus, Telemusik, etc.) should all be merged there as well, which would make an overly long article—not to mention unbalanced, since there would then potentially need to be similar entries (of from three to ten paragraphs, plus references) added to each of the 200 or so other titles listed there that do not at present have such individual articles. Merger into the main composer article is problematic, in that that article has already been criticised for being too long and detailed, with a suggestion to divide it into parts (though it has not been proposed how exactly that might be done).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can cite in the arcticle that it is "Stockhausen's most popular, most-often performed and recorded piece" that's fine, but as it stand the article doesn't even claim to be as notable as you've said. It needs to assert notability to warrant its own article, it currently does not. I'm aware you've only got two hands, but if this information is actually of notable interest, one would assume there exists more than one person to help work on the article. Rob Riv (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We're not working to a deadline here. This is a work in progress. I did find this. I'm sure there are more out there. If sources are out there but just not added, deletion won't add them. WilliamH (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You're making the assumption they do exist however. The basic point I'm making is the article itself doesn't assert notability as a composition, at least no more than any other composition by Stockhausen. I know there's no deadline - by that logic, all articles could improve eventually, that doesn't meant we wait for them to improve. Rob Riv (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well we don't have a choice since they aren't going to improve themselves. There is a reasonably clear emerging view that this should be kept and there are sources - the ones that need to be added need to be added, and that deletion will not address that. WilliamH (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, so I have added a statement about notability with three citations in support, and a discography which also ought to lend some evidence on this point. Does that help?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I think this amounts to a SNOW KEEP by now. A major musical composition by any standard. Yes, for major composers of some forms of music it is quite likely that every published work will have sufficient critical attention to be notable. DGG (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  17:47, 24 July 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.