Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How Sacred Harp music is sung

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. Clear consensus not to delete. Discussions about merging, reworking, retitling, etc, can be had outside of AfD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How Sacred Harp music is sung[edit]

[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)

Overly technical WP:NOTHOWTO guides, far too much detail and far too few sources. Most of what needs to be known is already covered at Sacred Harp. Prod declined for no valid reason. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article Sacred Harp discusses the book and its historic context while this article discusses singing techniques so I don't see any good case for just deleting this. It probably needs a better title, like Characteristics of Sacred Harp Singing. It's not a technical guide and WP:NOTHOWTO does not apply as it's a description of a practice not a manual for doing it. I share concerns about sourcing and possible OR so there is certainly a need to improve this but I don't agree that we're in deletion territory at all. Mccapra (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra: Does it really need to be spread among four articles though? At the very least I think a merge is in order. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ – Prod declined for no valid reason. I declined with this edit summary: "it's not a HOWTO; it's not 'overly technical' but a reasonably well sourced encyclopedic entry; it's part of a set of subject-related articles; this PROD doesn't seem uncontroversial *and* it didn't mention any of WP:SPEEDY; take it to AfD." As for this AfD: I agree that the article may have shortcomings, but that's no reason to delete. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Michael Bednarek: Do you still think a merge would be valid? Sacred Harp already covers most of the major points. I see no reason for all of this to be spread across four articles. I'm a professionally trained musician and even I found this way too technical. Would you accept a merge of the more major points? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure the main article will benefit from merging the relevant parts of three other articles into it. The current arrangement doesn't seem to cry out for some sort of remedy. It's just one of the more esoteric corners of Wikipedia, of which there are many. I won't object to a merge. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Michael Bednarek: It does cry out for a remedy. WP:IINFO is one. Again, does this really need four goddamn articles that are all a blatant how-to guide? It's like having four articles on how to tie your shoes. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a bit of a moot point by now, but WP:SPEEDY doesn't have any bearing on proposed deletion; it's a separate process. Ibadibam (talk) 14:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Migrate: How Sacred Harp music is sung, Leading Sacred Harp music and Pitching Sacred Harp music have some decent sources but these are mixed in amongst a lot of original research and anecdotal how-to content. The well-sourced parts could be merged into Sacred Harp and the rest of the content migrated to a third-party site like Wikia. Ibadibam (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Move to Characteristics of Sacred Harp Singing. This article is well written. The points it makes about traditional European singing music lacking what we today would call proper notation is spot-on. Apparently Sacred Harp is similar. Studies of the unwritten rules of interpretation are encyclopedic. The article is not a how-to-guide. As a side note as to the usefulness of this content, I would be pleased if someone added some similar discussion of the non-written tradition to Hymnody of continental Europe. In terms of technicality, it is more understandable than the continental Europe article. There is going to be technical terms due to the nature of the topic. There is no way around that. As far as dotting/lilting goes, this is another issue of interpretation that was not written in older singing musical notation. Exactly how to reproduce period music is a scholarly, encyclopedia-worthy topic. This is not really a how-to article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 08:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pitching Sacred Harp music[edit]

Yes, deletion, merger, or using some more abstract category should be considered. In the meantime, I added a couple sentences to this article. Vagabond nanoda (talk) 08:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:14, 2 February 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.