Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of trends in French music

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 ALL. postdlf (talk) 02:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of trends in French music[edit]

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

Indiscriminate list with no clear reason for inclusions and exclusions, and which does not actually cover a single trend in French music in any way: Instead, it focuses on telling us when random composers were born and died. Finally, a mere fork of Music of France, which, while needing work, at least makes an attempt to put things in context and actually follow trends.

I also nominate the following:

Timeline of trends in Hungarian music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - this one's only trend is the trend to ignore anything before the 19th century. Again, Music of Hungary actually covers the topic this article supposedly forked off to cover, while the supposedly focused article doesn't cover its focus at all, instead being a mere indiscriminate list

If you're going to have a "timeline of trends", it needs to show trends. None of these do, and as such are completely redundant to other, much better articles.

In some ways, the worst-case scenario would be for these to be rescued - as they're forks of articles that attempt to cover their subject, this could redirect work away from the much more important, main articles. In particular Music of France has suffered severely from badly-managed forking already. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nominator's logic is compelling. A random list of dates isn't a timeline of trends, and the coverage of the French musical tradition as a Wikipedia topic is so poor that this fork is both unnecessary and unhelpful. As for the related articles on other traditions, the same logic applies; they need to relate to trends identified in the appropriate article, and to be separated out from that only if considerations of length or layout require it. AJHingston (talk) 00:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all "A random list of dates" would be 1254 and 11 and 632 which my random number generator just gave me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not really an argument. I'm not even sure such a trivial attack on how it was phrased even counts as a straw man. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Arthur Norton's argument is a rhetorical reply to the rhetorical part of AJHingston's arguments. Turnabout is fair play. However, I will also take away from this the fact, that I had not noticed before, that only answering part of a set of arguments is not necessarily a straw man either. I always knew it was lazy and annoying. Anarchangel (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But it doesn't respond to a point actually made. What the phrase meant was clear in context, and had been said in more explicit terms in the introduction. If noone is actually arguing the only point you choose to address, you're using a straw man. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I really hope you know, he didn't literally mean list of random dates, but random dates associated with music that don't really come together to form a timeline of trends.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, rename all to Death dates of X Classical composers and musicians, X being nationality, and get rid of all entries that do not fit that description. I would not be surprised at all to find out that it had originally been titled similarly and wrongly retitled. Anarchangel (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Would that be a useful article? If it is, well, fine, but it seems hard to come up with uses for it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And, more importantly, it's not really a keep vote, but a "change the scope, title, and contents" to create an article which itself would probably be an indiscriminate list of dates with no particular use.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Such a page already exists: List of French composers. This is a content fork. --Folantin (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - these articles are nothing more than an indiscriminate listing of dates which, while all music related, in no way compromise a timeline. A "timeline of trends" would be murky at best, and the information it would encompass could (and should) be covered in the respected "music of" and "music history of" articles. Technically these articles could be "salvaged" from the awful state it is, but even then they would suffer from conceptual problems and still be far better served in the greater articles. Yaksar (let's chat) 18:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Further, we already have lists of composers by nationality for all these countries (for example List of German composers) which can easily be organized into template form which allows one to search by either alphabetical order, birth date, death date, etc. Re-naming these articles as suggested above would therefore be redundant.4meter4 (talk) 02:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above. --Klein zach 11:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Plus, article does not match title. Claude Debussy dying is not a "trend", unless there was an outbreak of Debussy deaths in 1918. "Trends in French music" would be, for example, the fashion for Grand Opera or the vogue for jazz - and it would be very difficult to give precise dates for such trends in a timeline. Much better dealt with at Music of France. --Folantin (talk) 12:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Music of France. Comte0 (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any content worth merging? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I personally don't think their is. The articles up for deletion are merely lists of composers without any factual content on them beyond when they lived. There is not enough meaningful content here to add into prose (i.e. non-list) article.4meter4 (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2011 (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.