Wikipedia:articles For Deletion List Of Compositions For Viola: A To B (2nd Nomination)

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 no consensus. Given the previous AfD went to Deletion Review, I think it's appropriate to add some brief remarks about this close. First, upon reviewing the discussion, there unfortunately is not a lot of detailed argument on either 'side,' as I count a good majority of both 'keep' and 'delete' responses either offering minimal feedback (" It's good to have" or " fails policy") with little actual analysis.

The nominator's central argument is that the page, and its sister pages, are way too indiscriminate, that it functions as a directory, and that Viola repertoire is a better page for notable inclusions. There is no consensus as to whether that is an appropriate reading of the article and it's not for me as the closer to impose my own view. The primary sentiment from Keep !votes is that the article meets WP:NLIST and should therefore remain as-is. The nom argues this isn't responsive to their reason for deletion, but I don't think that's quite right. If the list is notable, the question becomes an editorial one of the best way to handle the information in article/list format. Given there is no consensus about how to resolve that here, I think this is the most appropriate close at this time.

Finally, given the discussion is starting to go in circles and has been relisted twice already, I don't think a third relisting would be fruitful. -- Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 17:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC) reply

List of compositions for viola: A to B

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Including:

Huge violation of WP:NOTDATABASE/ WP:DIRECTORY! This should have never been kept at the first deletion discussion where the arguments for deletion were more numerous and the arguments to keep were fallacious. The presiding arguments to keep can easily be reduced to WP:LONGTIME and WP:USEFUL. However, Wikipedia does not need to (or should) fill the role that Music4Viola can do better.

I had created Viola repertoire to include notable inclusions (i.e., with Wikipedia pages or book/dissertation sources as the selection criteria) as pieces for viola do meet WP:NLIST (and a list could be more detailed than Category:Compositions for viola). However, redirecting the alphabetical lists of the compositions to the new page was opposed by the voters arguing keep of the last debate. When a list grows to over 10,000 entries filled with red linked composers, and the only sources are more directories that don't discuss a work in depth (in this case, Literatur für Viola) , it needs to be trimmed. Most of the pieces' top results on Google are this list.

Again, no prejudice against a Wikipedia list for viola compositions (when there are sources), but this needs a trim. In that case a suitable page, Viola repertoire, exists and can be renamed and expanded, and using the current "A–B" scheme as redirects would be unhelpful. Why? I Ask ( talk) 22:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Lists. Why? I Ask ( talk) 22:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete I would expect the musical works to have the links, not the composers. It seems to be a strange list, you can only find out information about the composers, not the musical works. Which tells me most of the musical works aren't notable, so the list isn't needed. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete I find the closing comment on the previous nomination exceptionally poor. The lack of policy explanation by delete voters is cited as a reason to keep, but almost all of the keep votes are explicitly listed in WP:ATA. I'm gonna pre-emptively rebut all the terrible arguments made in the previous thread:

"It's been around for 15 years" --> WP:NOHARM, WP:LONGTIME

"It serves people learning the viola" --> WP:ITSIMPORTANT

" WP:LISTN says it's okay if it a list has been discussed as a set" --> WP:LISTCRIT tells you to use common sense, and explicitly gives the example of "List of Norwegian musicians would not be encyclopedically useful if it indiscriminately included every garage band mentioned in a local Norwegian newspaper." as an example of this common sense. BrigadierG ( talk) 00:02, 30 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete with extreme viola-nce. Far too WP:indiscriminate. Clarityfiend ( talk) 07:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete twice for the excellent viola pun. Kazamzam ( talk) 01:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep. It has been said above that Music4Viola serves the purpose better - of course not, because it doesn't have what Wikipedia offers: the links to the composers. It has been said above that Viola repertoire serves as an overview of pieces for viola, - of course not, because it misses the more interesting pieces, those without article yet. Of course the list is not needed, but the same could be said about any article, - they all are written voluntarily, and read voluntarily. I see no harm, but a great resource for a few. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Let's refute some arguments: Wikipedia offers links to composers. That's such an incredibly weak feature to the list when looking up a composer takes less than a few seconds by highlighting the name and clicking "Open In New Tab" where Wikipedia is the top result. It lists pieces without an article. Obviously, red links are important and such to grow the project, but they should only be made if there is a chance of an article. That means there must be a bare minimum of some source. Most of the pieces and even most of the composers fail even the criteria of that. A red link can be added to Viola repertoire with a basic citation to some book/dissertation. Something that shows the piece has been discussed. The same could be said of any article. See WP:OSE and WP:NOHARM. Why? I Ask ( talk) 11:10, 30 December 2022 (UTC) reply

This is a textbook WP:NOHARM argument BrigadierG ( talk) 13:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete all per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Exact same reasoning as in the first nomination. Ajf773 ( talk) 09:50, 30 December 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep. Not indiscriminate per WP:DISCRIMINATE. This article has been assembled with care and provides a discriminate collection of information related to the topic (“works in which the viola is a featured instrument”). I believe that this article also adheres to the criteria for Stand-alone lists: WP: NOTESAL. Compositions for viola as a collection have been discussed by multiple sources, including the previously mentioned Zeyringer and Music4Viola (as well as other sources). Attempts have been made to improve the article by adding citations (one of the requests from the earlier Deletion review). Further citations from other sources can be added (and additional articles for individual entries can be created), but I have been hesitant to invest the time and effort for fear that additional deletion attempts would be made (that fear seems to be well-founded). The lack of links to individual pieces does not reflect on the notability of an individual work, just that the community has not yet had time to create individual entries for these works. I do not view deleting or trimming this article as a reasonable means of improving it and continue to see value in retaining this article in its current format. I also view Viola repertoire as a complement to this article, not a replacement. Dbynog ( talk) 20:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)dbynog reply
No, it's pretty indiscriminate when it lists a few thousand pieces by non-notable composers. The sources provided simply prove that pieces verifiably exist; it doesn't make a case for inclusion per WP:CSC. You'd also be hard pressed to create articles out of even a tenth of the pieces listed, and even then, Wikipedia does not use lists in the main space as "pages to be created" lists. Also, the essay WP:DISCRIMINATE is just plain wrong (and even then, a policy is stronger than an essay). I don't know why that essay exists when it literally says the opposite of what WP:INDISCRIMINATE says. (Edit: Also, WP:NOTDIRECTORY still exists.) Why? I Ask ( talk) 20:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete per nomination. I agree that notable pieces should be a part of Viola repertoire. No offence to any Viola players. Schminnte ( talk • contribs) 01:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As the previous AFD was the subject of a Deletion review, I'm going to be extra careful here and list the discussion for another week of debate or until an admin decides there is a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 22:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep: Meets WP:LISTN "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." Compositions written for the viola have obviously been discussed a a genre of music. The list also acts as a navigation outline, as recognized type of list. The list has a definite and well defined criteria for inclusion. // Timothy :: talk 11:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC) reply
@ TimothyBlue: I've already addressed WP:LISTN where Viola repertoire serves as a navigation list for pages that are actually on Wikipedia. There's no need for the larger A—Z list where links are far between, spread across over five pages, rendering the point about navigation moot (less than 0.4% of the entries on the A—Z page have links). Also, what list of criteria is there? Simply being a piece for viola is not a criteria. Why? I Ask ( talk) 14:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🎉 _{(
HAPPY
2023)} 01:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep The inclusion criteria seem a little loose; I'd restrict the list to composers who already have articles, but requiring each composition to be a blue link goes too far. But the fundamental concept seems solid. XOR'easter ( talk) 13:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC) reply
@ XOR'easter I never said the pieces needed a blue link. I said a piece needs a valid citation that's not just a index of works. There's also no way that simply being a notable composer makes the pieces notable. Britta Byström or Georgy Firtich may be notable. Their one or two pieces for viola are not. We wouldn't have a list of works for orchestral works by notable composers for a similar reason. Why? I Ask ( talk) 16:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC) reply
"Notability" is about whether articles should exist, not about what should be included within an article. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC) reply
If something's notable, that means there's at minimum a source about it: at least one. In which case, a piece can be added to Viola repertoire because there's a source and it doesn't just verifiably exist. Find me a single good citation for In the Kitchen by Michiru Ōshima or For Maurizio by Gérard Pape. You won't; the first result is this list. And Wikipedia has more policies than just WP:NLIST. For example WP:LISTCRIT which explicitly says As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion, and should not contain indiscriminate lists, only certain types of lists should be exhaustive. Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence. There you go. If you can find me that half of the pieces by even composers with blue links do more than verifiably exist, I'll withdraw my nomination. Why? I Ask ( talk) 16:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep Meets WP:NLIST per above arguments. SBKSPP ( talk) 01:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC) reply
That's still not an argument to keep, though? I already said it meets WP:NLIST. My issue is that there's two pages that duplicate information. Why? I Ask ( talk) 01:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC) reply
It can be trimmed down per XOREaster's suggestion. It won't hurt. SBKSPP ( talk) 01:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Trimmed down to what? In this case there's already a suitable, trimmed article ( Viola repertoire) that can be expanded. What selection criteria would you prefer? Why? I Ask ( talk) 01:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment: So far in the keep votes, we have several arguments that either completey fail WP:ATA or completely ignore the fact that citing WP:NLIST makes no sense given the nomination rationale. The first keep vote is, as one user notes, reduced to a WP:NOHARM argument, the next mischaracterizes WP:INDISCRIMINATE by saying that it's okay to use Wikipedia to list every piece of music for viola as they were "assembled with care". The last three votes again cite WP:LISTN which is literally, explicitly stated in the nom as not the issue. The last point of note is selection criteria. One user said it already had a well-defined selection criteria (it doesn't) and has not explained what that is. Another said using only notable composers would be fine with another agreeing saying "it wouldn't hurt" (great, another WP:NOHARM argument). That's better than what we have, but it's still not encyclopedic, because as I've noted, some pieces by small composers are so rare, this page is the first result when searching. I really hope the closing admin or future voters can be rationale because these reasons to keep frankly suck. Why? I Ask ( talk) 12:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete all per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and that these lists dont really give us the insight they should. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 06:40, 20 January 2023 (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.