Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Postromanticism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 of the debate was no consensus; standard disclaimer: THIS DEFAULTS TO KEEP BUT IS REALLY IMMATERIAL AND THIS AFD SHOULD NOT BE CITED BY EITHER SIDE IN CASE AN EDIT WAR BREAKS OUT OVER "KEEPING" OR REDIRECTING THIS ARTICLE. Oh, but since I see this is a duplicate of Post-romanticism and has less information, I'll just make it a redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 12:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism, only "real" reference is in the non-notable website listed above. Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE 20:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That is false. --Nikitchenko 03:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Since when was Neologism a criteria for deletion? --Nikitchenko 03:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable, unverifiable neologism, i.e. protologism. Stifle 21:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please take a look again Stifle, it is verifiable and to academic sources. --Nikitchenko 01:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Post-romanticism unless that is also bogus. —Wahoofive (talk) 06:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Post-romanticism is also bogus, or at least of unverified notability and should not squat on the main title. The common use of the word "Post-Romanticism" is as a synonym of Late Romanticism, especially (but not only) in music. I suggest redirecting all these to Romanticism, as we don't yet have an article on Late Romanticism. u p p l a n d 09:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Tapsharru's non-vote. It appears to me to be just a comment containing opinions and a suggestion to REDIRECT. --Nikitchenko 03:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify: my previous comment suggested deleting the current content and redirecting the title to Romanticism. Votes to redirect are quite commonly made in these discussions and are completely legitimate. u p p l a n d 08:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You maybe say the same if Late romanticism is ever created. --Nikitchenko 11:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify: my previous comment suggested deleting the current content and redirecting the title to Romanticism. Votes to redirect are quite commonly made in these discussions and are completely legitimate. u p p l a n d 08:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Tapsharru's non-vote. It appears to me to be just a comment containing opinions and a suggestion to REDIRECT. --Nikitchenko 03:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/REDIRECT to Post-romanticism. It is not bogus, Tapsharru, just because you say so. And the philosophy is notable. It is NOT the same as Romanticism and the movement/philosophy is backed up by many artists and a university professor. --Nikitchenko 03:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Post-romanticism exists as a concept synonymous with late romanticism. The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage (2002), p. 292, mentions Mahler and Richard Strauss as composers who can be called late romantic or post-Romantic. James Hepokoski, in the Cambridge History of Nineteenth-Century Music (2001), p. 456, points out that either post-romanticism or late romanticism in the context of musical history is to be seen as pejorative expressions coined by the the "high modernists, supporters of the dissonant, 'new music' in the years before and after the First World War" and that composers such as Mahler and Strauss (and a few others) are better defined - and saw themselves - as [early] modernists. Regardless of the pejorative nature of the term, that is the use of "post-romanticism" that the author is referring to as established. Any other usage so far still seem to be a late idiosyncracy. However, if you have academic references (or even notable non-academic references, such as some coverage in magazines or newspapers with a non-negligable circulation) which back up your claim about the notability of this "post-romantic" philosophy, Wikipedia can have an article on it too. In either case, the current Post-romanticism "article" doesn't tell us anything about the philosophy in question. It is not even a whole line. Actually, it is just an excuse for an external link. u p p l a n d 08:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Your research would be more productive in the article then here. If you favor for all that info about post- to be in Romanticism then you can do it, if you donot then somebody else will have to do it. What is put in the article is all thats had been contributed so far... Thank you for the information. --Nikitchenko 11:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Still, my vote remains. Keep/redirect to Post-romanticism. Contribute more to article. --Nikitchenko 11:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Your research would be more productive in the article then here. If you favor for all that info about post- to be in Romanticism then you can do it, if you donot then somebody else will have to do it. What is put in the article is all thats had been contributed so far... Thank you for the information. --Nikitchenko 11:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Post-romanticism exists as a concept synonymous with late romanticism. The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage (2002), p. 292, mentions Mahler and Richard Strauss as composers who can be called late romantic or post-Romantic. James Hepokoski, in the Cambridge History of Nineteenth-Century Music (2001), p. 456, points out that either post-romanticism or late romanticism in the context of musical history is to be seen as pejorative expressions coined by the the "high modernists, supporters of the dissonant, 'new music' in the years before and after the First World War" and that composers such as Mahler and Strauss (and a few others) are better defined - and saw themselves - as [early] modernists. Regardless of the pejorative nature of the term, that is the use of "post-romanticism" that the author is referring to as established. Any other usage so far still seem to be a late idiosyncracy. However, if you have academic references (or even notable non-academic references, such as some coverage in magazines or newspapers with a non-negligable circulation) which back up your claim about the notability of this "post-romantic" philosophy, Wikipedia can have an article on it too. In either case, the current Post-romanticism "article" doesn't tell us anything about the philosophy in question. It is not even a whole line. Actually, it is just an excuse for an external link. u p p l a n d 08:11, 21 January 2006 (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.