Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of classical music in literature

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. ✗plicit 00:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of classical music in literature[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An impossible scope that could include thousands upon thousands of books. I have no idea what this list offers the encyclopedia or what use a reader would ever find in it. Furthermore, I'm not convinced it passes WP:LISTN, as there is no way that it is "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". If this isn't WP:TRIVIA, I don't know what is. Aza24 (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Aza24 (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Aza24 (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is tough. On one hand, I agree with you. On the other, this topic is an interesting one which could potentially be much expanded upon into an article, rather than a bare list. There probably is enough material out there to fashion this into a solid article; something which studies the history of the uses of music in literature, traces its first mentions, how certain writers may have been influenced by a particular work or by classical music in general, etc. Off the top of my head, the life and work of Alejo Carpentier (who was a professional musicologist on top of being a novelist) come to mind. Usually, I'm all for deleting these kind of things, but this particular one is tricky as I can see its potential to be something more. But I agree that it is deficient as it presently exists. --CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. An intersectional list which adds no genuine information about either of its constituents - as meaningless, arbitrary and and WP:TRIVIAl as lists of 'animals in literature' 'art in literature', 'skyscrapers in literature' or any other '[noun/s] in literature'.--Smerus (talk) 08:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Listing every time X appears in fiction is what TV Tropes does, but it does not make for proper Wikipedia articles (see WP:CARGO). I don't see this filling any WP:LISTPURPOSE. It might be possible to write a prose article about this as CurryTime7-24 suggested; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction for an example of a poor list article being turned into a decent (if short) prose article. Writing such a prose article would however necessitate finding sources discussing the concept, rather than just listing examples. All that being said, this list article contains nothing that would be of any use for such a hypothetical prose article, so there's no point in trying to repurpose the existing one. Better to delete this one and create the other one from scratch (if it can be written at all, that is). TompaDompa (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Smerus et al. It kind of makes me go "ooh lovely, what a great idea" when I see it, because, oddly enough, I am into those two things (duh) ... but when I look at it it's in horrible danger of being just a crufty list, like Smerus's rather good examples to which I am tempted to, but will not, add more. And yes re it perhaps becoming a proper article – that is, as TompaDompa says, potentially an interesting idea but it requires proper stuff and that is not presently here. Mentioning in a literature article where it refers to classical music, in a nontrivial way – yes, good idea, and likewise the inverse ... but this, I just don't think it really flies. And it doesn't look as though the original author is still around to help make something other of it. So, sorry, I think we should probably Let It Go as they say. Best to all, DBaK (talk) 17:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.