Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Compositions 1960

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Compositions 1960[edit]

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

This "composition" is mentioned in the article on the "composer" -- surely this is sufficient for vacuous drivel on this level? (Sorry, that's technically something like "Not notable") Imaginatorium (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not for the editors of this encyclopedia to judge whether an art piece is unworthy based on the subject itself of inclusion here. To address the notability argument, several sources have been cited in the article that demonstrate significant coverage. One book devotes several pages to the seventh composition alone [1]. This article [2] covers LaMonte's compositions and this book gives non-trivial coverage on composition 10 [3]. I believe this article meets the guidelines of WP:NMUSIC. Altamel (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A well-known work, as indicated by the extensive and broad set of references on the article. (WP:NMUSIC may be problematic, as its focus on biographies and recordings doesn't really sit with conceptual compositions, but this work does meet WP:GNG. I'll also add that coincidentally its re-purposed cover page is currently on exhibition at Inverleith House in Edinburgh and was discussed / played there by Tony Conrad last month.) AllyD (talk) 18:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Perhaps "not notable" wasn't quite what I meant anyway. I am not suggesting the "work" is not worth mentioning, only whether it deserves a separate page, rather than being described (as it already is) in the article on the "composer". Even for real music I think it is preferable for minor works to be discussed in the context of the composer -- as for example Clarinet_Quintet_(Täglichsbeck), which I also suggesting removing. I also wonder whether someone should look at copyright, since it looks as though this page reproduces more or less the whole "score". Imaginatorium (talk) 18:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I started and made the first 30 or so edits to the article. Definitely meets the Notability criteria, per comments above. While these compositions aren't as NOTABLE as, say Beethoven's Fifth, they are still discussed in the music world.

As for Reasons for deletion listed on the Deletion policy page:

Meets speedy deletion criteria? NO
Copyright violation? NO
Vandalism? NO, unless you consider all modern music to be "vandalism"
Advertising? NO, unless you consider all articles on Wikipedia to be promotional content for their respective subjects
Content fork? NO
Unverifiable content? NO, look at the sources
Unreliable sources? NO, look at the sources
Notability issues? NO, per above comments
BLP breach? NO, because a composition is not a person
Useless template? NO, because this isn't a template
Contrary to namespace policy? NO, because this is an article
Not suitable for encyclopedia? It is suitable, because it is about a composition

Your hatred for modern music is not valid grounds for the deletion of this article. Lime save 03:05, 18 December 2014 (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.