Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viola Profonda


 * 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. The article remains in a poor state but there's a rough consensus here that there are enough sources to demonstrate notability and potentially produce a viable encyclopedia article here. ~ mazca  talk 01:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Viola Profonda

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I've just declined the spam speedy on this, though it's probably borderline. Is a new musical instrument notable? Wikipedia, it's over to you... Ged UK  10:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Greetz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.7.56.20 (talk) 11:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Why should a new instrument not be notable? At least it seamed to be notable to other-language pages of Wikipedia... It's name and construction is new but it doesn't stand for it's own, because it considers long european tradition of classical music theory. It is already accepted and has been presented in expert-forums: http://www.aesav.com/documentos/Calendario%20de%20actividades%20II.pdf


 * Delete I tagged it for speedy deletion because there is absolutely no evidence this is a notable instrument; when this is coupled with its recent invention and the only link in the article being primary this appears to be spam. Whether spam or not, if notability is not demonstrated - and it currently is not - then the article should be deleted. I42 (talk) 12:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The idea of a tenor-range string instrument is relevant and notable as you can appreciate at:
 * Viola da gamba
 * Tenor violin
 * So it achieves to be categorized in the categories music theory and it’s verified existance in bowed string instruments.
 * Neither is the reader of the article being guided to buy anything nor does the article aim to sell the described object; so it’s not spam.
 * Moreover it was also already accepted in other-languages Wikipedia-pages.

"Indeed, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to collect knowledge disseminated around the globe; to set forth its general system to the men with whom we live, and transmit it to those who will come after us, so that the work of preceding centuries will not become useless to the centuries to come.-"

- Diderot


 * Why should Viola Profonda not be notable? Just because it has not as many hits as Air Jordan yet when locking for it in a search engine?
 * Brgds


 * Comment No reason why it should not be notable. But is it? An official website is not an indicator of notability. There has been an article on the German Wikipedia, with so far as I can see no attempt to nominate for deletion. However, the different language Wikipedias have their own rules and procedures. There only appears to be one of these violas in existence - so far. If more references from outside sources were forthcoming, including perhaps some supporting the idea behind the instrument, things might look rosier for the article. (Personally, I think the theorising behind the development of this instrument is a bit like the Baconian theories of Shakespeare, but rather like the idea of the instrument. With due respect to the viola players I know, I've never quite seen the point of an instrument so close to the violin...). As to ghits, they are an indicator not a requirement. References outside the 'official' and self-edited are essential. Peridon (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Found one source in spanish. Which does still not warrant a separate article. Maybe this can be mentioned somewhere?--Tikiwont (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this comment. (Concerning the German Wikipedia-article: it was initially deleted because of the form and then accepted after having executed some changes.) The most important point on the theory of this instrument is its timbre (which also differs a Viola from a Violin and which is the main reason for the existance of both instruments): one of the most important issues in music in general. The own tone-colour of this tenor-string instrument, the possibility to play it easily being a Violin player and (again) the completion of the classic music-theory of four seperate voices within the strings-family make it notable. Brgds —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pro.tone (talk • contribs) 20:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep I did find two newspaper articles covering the instrument, which would seem to meet the criteria for multiple secondary sources. That's assuming, however, that these newspapers are reliable sources&mdash;they're both foreign-language newspapers (La Raz&oacute;n from Bolivia and El Comercio from Asturias) with which I am unfamiliar. &mdash;Smeazel (talk) 20:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Page of a recognized composer announcing a composition for Viola Profonda [] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pro.tone (talk • contribs) 20:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 *  Keep  Duplicate !vote struck Reference on the page of the spanish viola association.[](Pro.tone (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC))


 * announcement in the classic magazine with most reputation in germany [](Pro.tone (talk) 21:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC))


 * I think the article should be kept, unless the instrument builder really wanted to produce just one copy - which is hard to believe. Imagine Wikipedia had existed in the year 1700. Then we would have discussed whether the pianoforte was notable. The Viola Profonda does exist, and a few compositions have been written for it. But the writer of the article could have put more stress on the fact that filling the gap between viola and cello was Yañez's idea, and not a need that was deeply felt by the musical community.


 * There are also some things I miss in the article. What about the instrument's size? Is it bigger than an alto? The prototype was built in 2007. How many Violas Profondas are in existence now? How many compositions have been written for this instrument by now? Is there anyone who knows? Sijtze Reurich (talk) 01:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comment. A list of completed compositions can be found here: [] There are already much more in progress, but naturally they can't be posted in this article yet. Furthermore the VP is able to cover the tenor voice in any string quartet-composition with declared tenor-voice; for example the "Art of fuge" of J.S.Bach. The "Art of fuge" was already performed at the VPs' world premier (please see the CRESCENDO-reference in the article) and at the 2nd national congress of the spanish viola association.
 * Regarding the size of the VP and the existing number of items the article has been updated. Any additional, detailed information would be added in a future.
 * Brgds Pro.tone (talk) 06:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In 1700 we might also have discussed other instruments which did not go on to become notable. Wikipedia requires articles that are already notable, not those which might become so. I42 (talk) 08:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear I42, "which ...might become so." is interesting. In 2007 Wikipedia didn't seem to have a notability-concern with a new instrument as you can appreciate here: Reactable. At least it wasn't nominated for quick-delete... The VP exists, was mentioned in reliable sources and has a logic fundament; therefore the VP-article is notable enough to be kept.
 * Pro.tone (talk) 09:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; each article has to be considered on its own merit, and comparison with the Reactable article is irrelevant. So, considering the VP alone, the fact that it exists is not an indication of notability. Nor, in itself, is the fact that some pieces have been written/commissioned for it. However, the references to it may assert notability; I haven't had the opportunity to properly study them yet, and may not be able to form a judgement at all as they are not English publications. If a closing admin does decide notability is met then those references must be incorporated into the article. I42 (talk) 09:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear I42, the comparison with other articles is irrelevant, right. The hint to the Reactable-article was intended to aim with a 2007-view at the "In 1700...instruments which did not go on to become notable"-argument. BrgdsPro.tone (talk) 10:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - not all new instruments are notable, but based on the foreign-language sources, this appears to be so. Bearian (talk) 19:39, 2 November 2009 (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.