Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hallelujah Junction

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 per WP:SNOW. 28bytes (talk) 16:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hallelujah Junction

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

I have been unable to find any reliable sources covering this work significantly and in direct detail. The PROD-tag was declined because the composer's autobiography was called Hallelujah Junction. Fascinating. But it's still not significant coverage. ╟─Treasury Tag►Captain-Regent─╢ 07:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – John Adams is a notable composer; the fact that he named his autobiography after this piece must count for something.
The piece has been recorded a number of times, inluding by notable performers.
The piece is cited numerous times in musical journals and books; the journal articles all seem to be (subscription required).
The requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (music) are at odds with practice in Wikipedia and other encyclopedias: every composition by classical notable composers deserves an article – that's what distinguishes an encyclopedia from John Adams for Dummies. Very few of the works in Category:Minimalistic compositions will ever appear in the popular press. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep old stuff does not need to be in the popular press. (is NYT unpopular these days?) Agathoclea (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Influence of the work on another composer also asserted in this Guardian article. AllyD (talk) 16:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets requirements.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSNOTABLE. ╟─Treasury Tag►cabinet─╢ 19:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable - composition by major composer. And I'll wager any CD worth its salt will have significant coverage in its liner notes. I own a copy of the Naxos release; I'll look tonight and see what it says. (It appears not to be available online - surprising, given what I know of Naxos.) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notable – composition by major composer. – WP:ITSNOTABLE. Any CD worth its salt will have significant coverage in its liner notes. – although that wouldn't be a third-party source. ╟─Treasury Tag►cabinet─╢ 19:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? The liner notes aren't necessarily written by the composer. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More evidence of the impact of this piece. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per comments above. I have seriously considered closing this discussion as a speedy keep at this stage, but decided, by a narrow margin, to leave it open for additional input. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that none of the 'speedy keep' criteria actually apply. ╟─Treasury Tag►District Collector─╢ 09:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mass nomination of obviously to be kept articles like yesterday might qualify under #2. Three nominations and not a single delete comment. Agathoclea (talk) 09:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Mass nomination of obviously to be kept articles" might indeed qualify as flagrantly disruptive. However, nomination of three articles without the slightest whiff of notability probably doesn't, and I think WP:AGF tends to apply. ╟─Treasury Tag►Regent─╢ 12:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To apply AGF one would also expect the opposite of the tooth and claw approach shown on these three AFDs. Agathoclea (talk) 13:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you consider labelling transparent WP:ITSNOTABLE arguments as "WP:ITSNOTABLE" to be a 'tooth and claw approach' then we may have to agree to disagree. ╟─Treasury Tag►high seas─╢ 13:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A significant work by a major composer with multiple recordings and independent coverage in reliable sources. --Deskford (talk) 00:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The work is notable per the evidence presented above, and the article now contains sufficient sourcing to establish that. How could it possibly improve the encyclopedia's coverage of modern music to delete an article like this one?--Arxiloxos (talk) 03:42, 23 September 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.