Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faerie's Aire and Death Waltz

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. Courcelles 17:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Faerie's Aire and Death Waltz[edit]

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

Deleted three years ago at AFD; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Stump. An admin has told me that this isn't similar enough to the first revision to qualify for G4. Only sources are a fansite and a personal blog; absolutely nothing found in Gnews or Gbooks, and <400 unique Ghits, none of which are RSes. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, If the image gets deleted during this AfD it can be found on this page, as part of a collection of spoof classical music pieces, which also includes the two redlinks near the bottom of this page. —Soap— 21:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - interesting, but that's not an inclusion criterion. I see no coverage of this in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete - Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles which mention nothing of your "inclusion criterion". This piece is relevant. Mark my (uncoolcentral) words. Delete now and you'll regret it later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.219.71.40 (talk) 01:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC) — 75.219.71.40 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Idle threat much? What're you gonna do, cast an anti deletion spell on the article? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. threats in Wikipedia don't further your case. 1 hit in gnews [1]. LibStar (talk) 03:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete. There are some performances of this piece on YouTube, and I've seen the poster of the score hung up in 3 different music rooms in different states. There should be a Wikipedia page somewhere listing musical scores that have been created as conceptual/visual artworks rather than for playing, and this should be listed on it. I had nothing to do with creating the score or the page, I just think it's notable enough to be mentioned in an encyclopedia, as it's pretty much THE classic example in the world of a ridiculous and unplayable score... see some others here http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2007/02/we-dare-you-to-play-these-scores.html .... thanks, Ben Goertzel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.137.45 (talk) 03:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC) — 72.83.137.45 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please read WP:N. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is absolutely nothing to suggest this classical music spoof is notable enough for inclusion in an international encyclopedia. --MelanieN (talk) 02:45, 28 September 2010 (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.