Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two hundred fifty-sixth note
- 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. Tone 17:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Two hundred fifty-sixth note (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Is this note ever used frequently enough for people to recognize it?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment That's a good question, and I see no reason to vote keep unless someone shows that this is actually used. Starting with the idea that anything is possible, the article is essentially about one-half of a 1/128th note, which is used; the 1/256th note, which one webpage calls a "demisemihemidemisemiquaver" would theoretically be produced by a computer. I note only 19 Google hits for this "what if" of notes, and I see no evidence that it's been done (would anyone notice it if they heard it?). In theory, we could go for 1/512th or 1/1024th of a note, and call it a hemidemisemihemidemi forget about it. Mandsford (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's said to occur in one work by Rodolphe Kreutzer. WillOakland (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- That claim is asking for a {{by whom}} against it. Uncle G (talk) 05:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's said to occur in one work by Rodolphe Kreutzer. WillOakland (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Merge and Redirect to 1/128th note. §hawnpoo 18:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect per Shawnpoo. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 19:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete as complete original research. Source doesn't even mention any of what is said in article. Redirect not possible does to it being a non-plausible search term. Merge not possible due to the fact there are zero reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 02:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep It does not have to be used frequently-- if its used in one musical work its enough. This is not an abridged encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 04:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- What about verifiability and reliable sources as called for in WP:notability? Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 04:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- But it does aim to be an accurate one, that doesn't document the heretofore undocumented with stuff that Wikipedia editors have made up off the tops of their heads because it seems right to them. Uncle G (talk) 05:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete as original research. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 02:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. I would have said merge any verifiable information into Musical note, but there does not appear to BE any verifiable information. My favorite line in the whole article is "256th notes are exceptionally rare, obviously more so than one hundred twenty-eighth notes. Likewise, a 256th rest is virtually unknown, but no evidence says that neither of them don't exist." No evidence says it doesn't exist? What sort of doublespeak is that??? Seriously, even if there WAS something here worth perserving as information, I don't see why there needs to be an entire article for it. It can be more efficiently mentioned in other articles. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- There's actually no evidence that there is no evidence that it doesn't exist. JulesH (talk) 08:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - completely agree with Jayron32. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 03:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Jayron32 is right about the doublespeak. Clearly this is an attempt to defend the existence of the subject in the article itself, based upon an argument about the reasonableness of the idea rather than based upon the verifiability of the content. A search for sources reveals no documentation in any treatise on music of any note shorter than the semihemidemisemiquaver, which is documented (in Grove's Dictionary of Music, for starters). This, is not. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 05:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Unverifiable, original research, basically nothing to say that isn't simply a logical extrapolation of rules given in Musical note. JulesH (talk) 08:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I see no evidence that this is original research, in fact I think it's likely that the note exists. However, there's no indication that it's ever been used, and even if it has, it's incredibly rare. I don't agree with DGG's non-abridged encyclopedia idea; we all know that the Notability criteria means that lots of things don't get included in all fields. --GedUK 14:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete demisemihemidemisemiquaver, that's a new one on me! Anyhow, it's all original research. There isn't even a mention of the note's usage in any notable pieces of music, unlike the good example at the 128th note page. Themfromspace (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- 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.