Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reedless wind instrument

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reedless wind instrument

[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)

This is not a category that has any useful meaning, and is not part of the standard categorization of instruments. It seems analagous to something like "non-flying mammals". Special-T (talk) 19:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Special-T (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDICDEF. While "reedless wind instrument" is certainly used as a descriptor for many flutes, etc. in reliable sources (especially primitive examples), but beyond a simple dictionary definition of what that term means, reedless wind instruments as a group do not appear to be discussed. The various types of reedless wind instruments are, but those already have articles of their own. As an alternative to deletion, I'd suggest that a condensed version of this article be created at wikt:reedless wind instrument with a soft redirect here. CThomas³ (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But "reedless wind instrument" lumps flutes and brass instruments together, which is pretty meaningless. It's not "reedless woodwinds" (which I still don't think is a useful grouping). Seems like someone was trying to make a point about "pure" aerophones. - Special-T (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unsourced dicdef stub with a snowball's chance of growing further, if the last thirteen years are any guide. Any useful content not already appearing in wind instrument can be merged there. (That article's section on "Physics of sound production" uses "air reed" to describe the excitation mechanism of flutes and whistles, in a list including (cane) reeds and lip reeds.) Just plain Bill (talk) 14:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Delete. I just can't imagine what good that article is by itself. If we cover reeds and non-reeds in the same article, e.g. wind instrument, and then the different mechanisms for sound production in their own detailed articles (fipple, reed, double reed, etc.) I just don't see the point. It's a dicdef and unlikely to grow, as Bill points out. Antandrus (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I hate to disrespect anyone's GF work here but I have trouble seeing what use this is ... it feels like mostly a definition of what a thing is not, with a few other ideas bolted on the side, in a way I find a bit awkward, like someone's own interesting but personal idea. I can't see it growing into a useful article and I don't think it can fly on its own. Sorry. DBaK (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've never heard this classification used, at least not enough that I remember it. I agree with the nom's "non-flying mammals" example as well. Aza24 (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2020 (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.