Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs in triple meter (2000-2009) (2)

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 of the debate was DELETE. I would also observe that the summary reversal of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs in triple meter (2000-2009) was a little unsatisfactory and could have been fixed more appropriately by adding the tag! -Splash^talk 00:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs in triple meter (2000-2009)[edit]

We deleted songs in triple meter] (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Songs in triple meter) because it was unverifiable (most current songs are not published as sheet music so the time signature cannot be verified; several of those allegedly in triple were not), and because triple metre is not in any case that unusual. A new article, Triple metre, exists as a result of that debate. We voted to delete this again at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs in triple meter (2000-2009) but there was a "failure of process" - actually there wasn't, it's just that the editors removed the AfD tag. The current article has all the original flaws, including the false statement that 12/8 is triple metre (not in my book it isn't, it's a compound double, but 9/8 is). I suggest we delete it again. Just zis Guy you know? 20:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see the problem here. If you think there are songs not in triple meter, just remove them and optionally say on the talk page why. As for which signatures are considered triple meter, there is an ongoing discussion on the talk page. Deleting this useful list is totally unnecessary. Grue 22:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the definition of triple metre is, IU think, inaccurate, and the verifiability, is suspect, and there is nothing terribly unusal about triple metre (meaning that it has a vast number of potential entries), and it was previously deleted under another title, and it's original research sice there are no sources stating that these songs are in triple metre. Apart fomr those, and the fac t that it's listcruft, there are no problems of which I'm aware:-) Just zis Guy you know? 23:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article we should delete - too many songs can be found of this kind. This meter is often encountered in rock - there's problems defining that meter as well. It's hard to maintain and it's crufty to boot; you'll find it's not possible to list them all. I can't see that anyone would need this list - I really don't think that it's needed round here. Grutness...wha? 02:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am a musician, and I think this would be VERY unmaintainable and would result in really goddamn stupid POV disputes ("well, it's triple meter here, for a few measures, before it goes back to 4/4." "But a song has to be in triple meter for x amount of time to be included here!" "Is this song notable enough?" "Can anyone tell me what triple meter is?") Wikipedia does not need this and I really can't imagine many people caring whether a song is in triple meter or not. Grand master ka 11:31, 26 March 2006 (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.