Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lydian augmented scale

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. I have entirely failed to understand the delete rationales. The claim that it is not notable enough is plainly contradicted by numerous book sources. The article only has a single source, but could clearly have any number desired if necessary. NOTDIR would require the article to be a list of some sort which it patently isn't. NOTMANUAL is also failed to explain exactly how that applies so I am inclined to agree that is "vague handwaving". I do not see either, any explanation of how "not an indiscriminate collection of information" is supposed to apply either. SpinningSpark 22:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lydian augmented scale

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

This scale isn't notable enough to have it's own article. This isn't really it's own scale, it's just derived from the minor scale. BassHistory (talk) 11:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable. Andrew (talk) 12:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to jazz minor scale and attempt to draw a consensus there as to its inclusion, but delete if lacking other options. As a derivative and without a current source that suggests any substantive use it falls to the philosophy behind a combination of WP:NOTDIR and WP:MANUAL. This reads as a textbook entry with minimal context and lack of secondary sources to suggest any notability. Citations that merely state "this exists"--From only one instructional source, no less[1], and the author himself lacking notability via a Wikipedia entry and minimal search impact--Is simply not enough. I won't claim a specialty in this area, which is another reason I suggest a redirect so we don't necessarily have to lose this content via future diffs but it can be evaluated more appropriately via a talk page. ♪ Tstorm (talk) 08:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:MANUAL. Aerospeed (Talk) 21:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDIR seems quite irrelevant and so, without evidence, should be dismissed as a WP:VAGUEWAVE. WP:NOTMANUAL is a matter of style not deletion and so the page just needs further editing to address it. It is quite easy to find sources which discuss the topic in detail, including the theory and history of the scale — see The Lydian Augmented Scale in Patterns for Jazz -- A Theory Text for Jazz Composition and Improvisation, for example. This source clearly demonstrates both notability and the potential of the topic. Andrew D. (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I don't know why I suggested WP:NOTDIR, but I did. Even so, the article is an indiscriminate collection of info on a music scale, and the topic is not notable to be on wikipedia. Aerospeed (Talk) 22:12, 1 December 2014 (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.