Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concerto in G Major

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.

Concerto in G major

The result was Keep, as the nominator withdrew after substantial changes were made to the article. Nominator close, as this is uncontroversial and clearly for keeps. -Airplaneman ^talk 00:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Good faith, but there are tons of concertos in G minor, and this therefore can't redirect to just Telemann's. Airplaneman ^talk 23:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete there's no content. Eeekster (talk) 00:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as disambiguation, or redirect to List of compositions for keyboard and orchestra (where Piano Concerto in G major redirects), less favourable because of its broadness. Intelligentsium 00:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Speedy Delete. A quick Google search for "concerto in G Major" locates other concerti in G Major by Mozart, Vivaldi, Haydn, etc. There isn't a reason in the world why this entry should automatically send people to Telemann's. --MelanieN (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
UPDATE: Changed opinion to Keep based on revision. --MelanieN (talk) 06:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)Melanie[reply]

Comment. Original article seems like a malformed redirect, so probably shouldn't be at AfD. A dab page would be appropriate, and useful, in this instance. Quantpole (talk) 13:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC) Which is what has now been done. Good job. Quantpole (talk) 13:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice for a reasonable redirect or dab page to be created. This should have been turned into a properly formatted redirect and gone to RfD not AfD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: As of 20:11, 27 November 2009 the article is substantially different than it was at the time of nomination. Editors above this line editing before 20:11, 27 November 2009 have been notified. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in its new incarnation as being a possibly useful, and in any case harmless, dab page. --Lambiam 23:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw or speedy-close this AFD as mooted by recent changes without prejudice to creating a new AFD for the new version. I would vote Keep for the new/current version. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest withdrawal. Page is now a useful disambiguation page. decltype (talk) 00:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course - I withdraw. Definitely a useful page now. I couldn't find the exact way to withdraw, so I'm hoping I'm doing this right. Regards, Airplaneman ^talk 23:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As soon as this meets the criteria for a WP:SNOW non-admin closure you can close it yourself, with the reason being "withdrawn with unanimous consent." Unfortunately, with Eekster's comment outstanding, it's probably better to not do a non-admin closure just yet. He last contributed at 11:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC), he might not have seen the note on his talk page regarding the changes. Yes, I know NACs should be done by non-involved editors, but if it's unanimous, who is going to argue with it? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Davidwr and others. Agreed, this is a good solution. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:17, 30 November 2009 (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.