Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church cantatas in Leipzig between Trinity Sunday 1725 and St. John's Day 1728

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 speedy keep. (non-admin closure) GSS (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Church cantatas in Leipzig between Trinity Sunday 1725 and St. John's Day 1728[edit]

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

Fairly arcane and obscure subject, with very narrow geographical and chronological extent. No references or discussion of notabililty (WP:A7?). Specto73 (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

wow... I just started developing this, and will take some time. Did you see the {{under construction}} template?

As to the ground of the matter, the article is by and large about Bach's third cantata cycle, currently a redirect to a very short summary. I didn't want to change the redirect until the article was somewhat developed. I chose the longer article title because the period of Bach's third cantata cycle, between Trinity Sunday 1725 (= end of Bach's second cantata cycle) and St. John's Day 1728 (=start of the Picander cycle a.k.a. fourth cycle), also covers several cantatas performed under Bach's direction, but not composed by him, and also a few church cantatas composed by him but not part of the cycle (such as the new council cantata). On these cantatas there is of course extensive scholarly coverage, as well as there is biographical coverage on the "third cycle" of Bach's own cantatas, just give it the time to develop and provide sourcing. I'd rather not wikilink to it too much prior to covering the basics in the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, the title, which played a large part in my nomination, is deceptive. An outside observer would not necessarily draw the connection to Bach; the title makes the topic sound considerably more obscure than perhaps it is. If you were to make the connections to Bach more obvious (at the moment the article consists purely of a table, hence my belief that it qualifies for WP:A7), so as to establish its notability, or to draw upon more secondary sources (so as to satisfy WP:BASIC), then I would, of course, gladly withdraw my nomination. As it stands, however, I believe that the subject matter, as currently expressed, is too narrow to be worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia. See: WP:NOTEVERYTHING Specto73 (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to move to "Church cantatas of Bach's third to fifth year in Leipzig", but am not sure whether I can do this as long as this AfD is open. Is a snow close possible? Or withdrawal of the AfD by the OP (as it is clearly going nowhere AfD-wise, and this is not the right forum for page name discussions)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Good approach, compares to second cantata cycle. The title, however, is awful, but can stay for a while if eventually it will by Bach's third cantata cycle. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gerda Arendt. Nomination appears to be premature. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BEFORE C1, C2, and C3 suggest that 27 minutes is too fast for an AfD nomination. The talk page is currently a red link. Unscintillating (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I reluctantly withdraw my nomination for deletion. I still believe that the contents of this article, as currently expressed, are too obscure for inclusion in an encyclopaedia (WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:A7), and, furthermore, that this article does not satisfy WP:BASIC (all but one of the references come from one secondary source). I recognise, however, that I have a "snowball's chance in hell" of persuading anyone to agree with me on this, so, I suppose there isn't any point continuing with this process. I welcome the decision by the author to rename the page, and encourage him to do so. --Specto73 (talk) 10:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Added the Zedler, Wolff and Boyd references who give general descriptions of this series of cantatas (the first two including "third cycle" tables comparable to the one now included in the article). If this isn't enough, feel free to add more specific references (I provided an extensive list of sources too), or add a {{refimprove}} if you think that would serve a cause. I also moved the page as discussed above, but don't know about procedures in case of a withdrawn AfD: I feel uncomfortable removing the AfD tag on the article – I suppose an admin will pass by for the formal closure? --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - this topic will be familiar to anyone with even a nodding acquaintance to Bach's work, even if his cantatas aren't his most widely-known music. See WP:BEFORE. I do, though recommend to User:Francis Schonken that it's considered good practice to have inline citations to reference works these days, not just an ending bibliography. I've added some sources from Google Books as a start on this. Blythwood (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2016 (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.