Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unfigured bass

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. → Call me Hahc21 20:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfigured bass[edit]

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

Nonexistent topic, kind of like Meals without bananas —Wahoofive (talk) 20:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly a nonextant topic: Heinichen and others devote whole chapters to it and a better analogy would perhaps be Recipes without exact measurements. Isn't merging the most obvious course? Though the most interesting content so far is on the Talkpage... Sparafucil (talk) 23:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably could include a few sentences on the topic within Figured bass, but other than the how-to (not appropriate for WP) there isn't much to say other than "have to guess what the figures would be if they were there". —Wahoofive (talk)

The how to guess is the interesting part, and the attention it has historically gotten is (I think) clearly not what WP:NOTHOW is talking about, or we'd have to do without articles about composition and counterpoint as well. I don't mean to be ornery though; that paragraph sounds like a good idea, with a merging of the talk-history. Sparafucil (talk) 09:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep following rewrite by User:Musicmaster7. Just because there are few or no explicit instructions given about how to do something does not mean that there is nobody writing about it, or that the only things to say about it are how to do it. Beyond what is now in the article, there is almost certainly something to be said about the history of the topic. PWilkinson (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Mdann52talk to me! 07:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of improvements made to the sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 13:24, 3 July 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.