Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of compositions with unusual key relationships

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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of compositions with unusual key relationships

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

No qualifier for what constitutes "unusual." No sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The word "unusual" is a subjective term indicating POV. What is unusual to one person may not be unusual to another. Cindamuse (talk) 23:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a directory or an indiscriminate collection of information (it is not cleat what "unusual" means, and with it is POV too). Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 10:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't pretend to understand this, but it sounds like we have a definition in the article: "deviate from the norm of modulating to the dominant (in a major key) or to the relative major or dominant minor (in a minor key)". It is not indiscriminate, and there don't seem to be an awful lot of pieces in the list. It could be restricted to notable works, but my gut feeling is that almost all of them could be notable. St Anselm (talk) 12:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is by no means unusual; countless works contain "abnormal" key changes. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while it sounds like the article has defined unusual, its not nearly precise enough to warrant the use of the word. ive found one article with the word unusual in the title which i support: List of cars with unusual door designs, which i think works, as exceptions are limited and easily defined. This article has no references, and we would need a ref showing this feature of each work, and mention in the main article on those few which have articles. it also seems to be limited to classical music, which is an arbitrary demarcation, unlike the car door article, which includes all cars. we would also need a reference to books showing this particular classical music variant is often remarked on. Basically, tenpound is right.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unmanageable because it does not have clear inclusion criteria. It is unreferenced, but I doubt sufficient references are out there to clarify this topic and set inclusion criteria. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 19:07, 19 August 2010 (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.