- 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 no consensus to delete; default to KEEP. - Philippe 19:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Melodeclamation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Neologism. Less than 400 Google hits [1], most of which are Wikipedia mirrors. Also OR and redundant because we already have Melodrama#Melodrama in opera and song. S.dedalus (talk) 23:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. per nomination. --S.dedalus (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Darkspots (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. X Marx The Spot (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, more an obsolete term than a neologism. Numerous sources in Google Books. --Dhartung | Talk 00:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Neologism implies that the term was recently coined - given that the term appears to date back to the 19th century, this is certainly not the case. The term appears to be uncommonly used today, but the sources look solid enough. Zetawoof(ζ) 01:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm pretty sure that the term musical declamation is essentially the same. It's in slightly wider use. --Dhartung | Talk 02:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, rename to Musical declamation. From references both in google and Google Books I strongly suspect that "melodeclamation" is but a calque from Russian language. Any Russian speakers to comment? BTW "melodic declamation" can also be found. Laudak (talk) 02:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That might be a good idea. There are almost 4,000 Google hits for that. --S.dedalus (talk) 04:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Neologism? o.0? +Hexagon1 (t) 10:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, possibly transwiki to Wiktionary if they will have it. This is a dictionary definition of an outdated and obsolete term. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom NN Dreamspy (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is obviously a notable subject per comments above, and the article is certainly not a dictionary definition. If you object to the inclusion of etymology then just remove it - you'll still be left with an encyclopedia article. The best name for the article can be decided on the talk page, but this is clearly not the same as Melodrama#Melodrama in opera and song. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2008 (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.