Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ludwig van Beethoven's religious views

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 no consensus. Big Dom 17:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwig van Beethoven's religious views[edit]

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

Apparent POV fork of Beethoven's biography discussing in some detail what seems to be a very minor fringe dispute. As it stands, the article is almost entirely original research, and nothing indicates that its topic holds enough significance to deserve its own article. Landon, for instance, doesn't seem to broach the subject; and more recent musicologists like Lockwood make no mention of the purported controversy simply taking as granted that LvB wasn't a very religious man.

A quick google shows very little interest by scholars in the question in the first place, and what little dispute there may be in religious sources can be discussed in the main article, if at all. — Coren ^(talk) 18:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and broaden to include a wider range of discussions. For someone as world-famous as Beethoven, separate articles on major themes are appropriate . Considering the very important significance of the rather contradictory messages in the 9th symphony and the Missa solemnis, a major topic. There are specific references for it, some at book length.--see the article in the Catolic Encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 19:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where you deduce "important significance" of religion according to what was composed. For one, much of what Beethoven wrote was on commission, as is normal for any Kapellmeister. Secondly, I don't see why one need to even have religious conviction simply to write music on religious themes or for religious occasions! Or are you arguing that Wagner needed to live in expectation of Ragnarök to write the Ring Cycle? Unless they have significant coverage in reliable sources, Beethoven's putative religious leanings do not deserve an article. They do not (or at least none have been put forward). — Coren ^(talk) 02:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not inherited, per WP:GNG. Although his religion might influence his music, the link is rather tenuous. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 20:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is religion a "tenuous" influence on someone known to have composed famous masses ? DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how it would even be related. By that reasoning every architect who designed a church is automatically a Christian? The point is, reliable sources don't cover the subject at all. If it has any significance, it's very marginal and very poorly covered. It might be worth a paragraph in the main article — at best — but it certainly doesn't even have enough verifiability or notability for an article. — Coren ^(talk) 02:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Composers - Voceditenore (talk) 17:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep: On the one hand, it is a topic worth exploring and worthy of inclusion in the pedia. On the other hand, it is problematic - a lot of synthesis and unsourced attempts at tracing religious beliefs to musical content. (In this, DGG is right that a composer of religious music must be somehow influenced by religion - but what that influence is exactly is not apparent.) This character Charlie Hopta has to go - he is not a music historian, but a band leader in Easton, Pennsylvania - not someone who merits the laurel of reliable sourciness.

But bad is not unworthy. The article needs to be improved, not scrapped. --Ravpapa (talk) 18:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. It can always be merged back with the main article if need be. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable. See for example, Gotthard Fermor, ed. (2006). Spiritualität der Musik: Religion im Werk von Beethoven und Schumann. CMZ-Verlag Winrich C.-W. Clasen. ISBN 3870620811. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus would deign to give us anything (in English) from the above magnum opus I might possibly think differently. But as things are, a very poor article, most of which seems to be referenced to an (itself unreferenced) high-school essay. Any clean up would leave virtually nothing. So delete and merge to the main article anything which might be of interest and is not WP:OR.--Smerus (talk) 05:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about the title "Spirituality of music: Religion in the works of Beethoven and Schumann"? If a professor of theology at a German university writes a book on the subject (strictly speaking half a book I suppose), that seems to me pretty strong evidence of notability. Even if it is not in English, there's no need to be sarcastic about it. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 07:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, then, Hyperdoc, add something from the book to the article. While I am assuming that the subject has value, and that things of interest have been written on it, as the article stands now, there is nothing of value in it. -Ravpapa (talk) 12:56, 9 March 2011 (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.