- 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 NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 06:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article is based solely on a very confused passage in a book, making it unclear what musical interval an "Arabian comma" is supposed to be, and whether this term is even in real use among music theorists. There are also doubts about the accuracy of other statements in the article. See the Talk page for much discussion of this. --Zundark 11:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Concept is based on one single source, which has been proved to be unreliable. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as per my nomination. --Zundark 09:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Izehar 16:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The discussion on the article's Talk page leads me to believe the subject is, indeed, notable. (note: this vote was entered after the official closing time, but due to the few votes and lack of consensus, I figured an extra late vote couldn't hurt.) Owen× ☎ 18:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a question of notability, it's a question of correctness. I did not cite non-notability as a reason for deletion in my nomination, so I don't understand how you got the impression that notability was an issue. In fact, I do consider the 53-tone comma to be notable, and would even consider writing an article on it myself if I knew what to call it. --Zundark 19:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent! Then let's correct the article. As you know, articles are not deleted when they are found to be incorrect; if the subject is worthy of keeping, we'll find someone who can shed some light, and fix it. You can use the {{Expert}} tag (or one of the others from Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup that you are already familiar with) instead of AfD. Owen× ☎ 22:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a question of notability, it's a question of correctness. I did not cite non-notability as a reason for deletion in my nomination, so I don't understand how you got the impression that notability was an issue. In fact, I do consider the 53-tone comma to be notable, and would even consider writing an article on it myself if I knew what to call it. --Zundark 19:37, 27 November 2005 (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.