Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drop C tuning

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. No prejudice towards later discussions about a merge or redirect. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drop C tuning

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

This doesn't seem to be an "official" tuning. The only sources I could find were unreliable sites like howtotuneaguitar.org or YouTube videos, and the only book hits were false positives or Wikipedia mirrors. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm showing 74,000 Google hits for the exact phrase. Here's one, from Warren Allen's Encyclopedia of Guitar Tunings, a web encyclopedia launched in 1997. Carrite (talk) 01:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And how is that reputable? It's a personal website hosted on cox.net. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to guitar tunings, merging some of the tuning details if appropriate - the long list of bands can be safely discarded due to list creep and lack of verifiability. It does seem like the sort of term somebody might search for though, so a redirect would be useful. 81.142.107.230 (talk) 09:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm withholding my decision for now, but I was able to find this and this (they directly mention Drop C tuning and don't seem like false positives to me). Drop C tuning may have more prevalence in other citable guitar lesson books as well. Chris (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And both of them use different definitions, further solidifying that this term is so random and seldom-used that no one can even agree on what it means. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to guitar tunings. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good idea IMO. That whole section on Dropped X tunings needs a blasting out, since I can't find sources on ANY of the tunings except Dropped D. And clumping a bunch of non-notable tunings together doesn't make them notable after combining, so a merge is out of order IMO. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 03:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Guitar_tunings#Dropped_tunings. That article is a mess too; however, I'm convinced that "dropped tunings" warrant at least some information - either in that article, or in an article of their own, ie, an appropriately encycopaedic section/article on dropped tuning could be made - but that's not what we're here to consider. There's no sign of enough RS to support an article on "Drop C tuning", but I see no harm in a redirect. I understand TPH's comment, but I feel discussion of our poor coverage of dropped tunings is outside the scope of this specific AfD - and I do believe that 'dropped tuning' itself is notable enough. Chzz ► 13:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Google search on "Drop C tuning" -wikipedia finds 205,000 hits; "Dropped C tuning" -wikipedia another 52,000. They are primarily discussion forums, blogs, guitar tab sites, and the like, so almost none are worth citing individually for notability purposes. Collectively, however, I think they make the case that the term is in common parlance in the guitar world, at least in hard rock/heavy metal. There are also WP:RS sources, ten of which I've added to the article. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although I agree most of the Google stuff seems unreliable, it doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't exist. For example, I know for sure that the "Colle" violin bow technique exists, it's just that it lacks WP:RS to support its existence, and if I created it, I would need RS, not WP:OR (my own knowledge). HurricaneFan 25 15:07, 24 November 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.