Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SATB

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:18, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SATB

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Article is about a non-notable initialism that isn't a concept in it's own right. Recommend redirect to Four-part harmony (even though there is probably a case for that to be afd'd as well.) — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 21:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No indication of notability that qualify subject for an article. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 21:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a dictionary definition with no sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article is linked to in hundreds of articles because it is the standard way to describe the voices of a choir, for example SSATTB for a choir of two soprano sections, one alto ... - Example: Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1. - This article needs to exist, not be a red link to these hundreds of articles. If a redirect, what do you think about to where? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
more than thousand links as I write this --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
not only linked but looked up: recent views --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: Thousands of incoming links don't mean that the term is notable. Several words and terms exist in the English language that don't need to be linked. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned about two things:
This is the professional way to describe a vocal scoring. Look at publishers' information, for example Polish Requiem, about the first thing you want to know about a choral piece: which voices? In this case SATB soloists and two SATB choirs. Most people will already know that without an explanation, but obviously several look it up regularly.

These links should not turn red, and I don't see a good redirect. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be out of place for an interwiki link or redirect to wiktionary:SATB? What's on the wiktionary page is essentially the main useful information on the current SATB page. — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 14:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another term in your example is "mixed choir" which I decided to throw into the Wikipedia url bar. It brought me to Choir#Types and gave me a brief explanation of the concept. Surely SATB can function the same way. I think SATB could simply be re-directed to a section on some article that has a brief explanation of SATB. There already (sort of) is one at Choir#Types. I'm sure a short section could be added to Four-part harmony (that article needs to be basically re-written anyways). A small section on any other of the related harmony articles would probably be suitable too. — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 14:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I notified project Classical music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:45, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except that this is a notable term used by music theorists and music publishers alike. While in its current state the article is nothing more than a expanded definition, there is definitely a considerable amount of research published about SATB. Why? I Ask (talk) 12:45, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is a notable term, but I can't see evidence for it being a notable concept, or thing in its own. ("Encyclopedia articles are about a person, or a group, a concept, a place, a thing, an event, etc. ") Would you mind providing some sources to verify this? — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 14:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as I see no good way of a redirect. Four-part harmony is not it, because it is a term also for single voices (in a larger work, singing after another) and seven-part harmony, for example. Compare the Schott listing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Four-part harmony: This is definitely an important term within the realm of music, but I don't think it will ever be more than a large dictionary definition. Why? I Ask (talk) 12:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not happy because this is not only for four parts, just the opposite: a convenient way to shortly describe other combinations, such as the typical Handel SSATB. We do need something to explain to readers who can't guess from the context. Also, that article is also under a deletion discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know that four part harmony is currently listed, and I vehemently oppose it. I suppose you're right that SSATB and other configurations exist, but could those not be mentioned on the Choir article instead? I wouldn't mind keeping this page either, but merging and preserving the article's history seems to be best for now. Why? I Ask (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A reader who wants to know more about what SSAATBB stands for is served badly with a link to Choir, also it's used for the soloists as well. This concerns more than 1000 articles, so any change should be done with care, if at all. I don't see a problem with what we have. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The terms would be referenced in a section of the of the Choir article (most likely Choir#types), and a redirect could be made to that specific section. A straight up copy of the text in the SATB article to the Choir article would suit me just fine. More pressing is the issue of the potential deletion of four part harmony. Why? I Ask (talk) 13:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a good topic and likely search term. Yes, it should probably be a redirect to a broader article. But deleting it and its history will not improve Wikipedia. This is part of a rash of related AfD nominations that stand not just to discourage knowledgeable editors, but to make Wikipedia a laughing-stock among those we most want to recruit to improve the pages. Andrewa (talk) 04:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Why. Add section SATB to Four-part harmony and redirect SATB. Variants SSATB (Five or more voice parts) could be mentioned. Grimes2 (talk) 09:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The proposed redirect would just make life needlessly hard for people trying to figure out what SATB is about and would affect thousands of articles for no discernible purpose (and redirects to article sub-headings have a nasty tendency to break). I especially agree with what Andrewa said. Atchom (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like a reasonable topic, article cites sources, common musical term. --Jayron 32 12:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I absolutely commend the editors who have improved the article since the listing of the AfD, bumping it from the 1-reference unsourced mess it was before. But, these additions don't change the fact that the article's topic doesn't pass WP:DICDEF. The new additions are mostly sourced from music publisher listings and not secondary sources, evidently failing WP:WORDISSUBJECT. The new additions would make a good section in the (also newly-rejuvenated) Four-part harmony or Choir#Types. — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 22:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where do think our readers should find the information which is linked in more than 1,000 articles? It's used also for more complex settings than four-part harmony. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As previously mentioned, the link would be redirected to a section in a different article, and all of the currently present information would be added. The readers would still find the information and the links would still work due to the redirect. — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 14:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is not a dictionary Puglia1999 (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or maybe with enough rewriting move to mixed chorus or mixed choir (why do those redirect to different sections?). Four part harmony seems to be about voice leading rather than a choral ensemble. Sparafucil (talk) 00:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voice leading is fundamental in a SATB choral staff. Grimes2 (talk) 04:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The suggested merges don't work for instrumental music, which is now in the article also. Many refs added. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article isn't at all well defined, as the missing mixed chorus would be. The references so are all about pedagogical treatment of voice leading, but most incoming links would be better served by The Essential Bach Choir or an expanded Joshua Rifkin, if not OVPP. Sparafucil (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly we need a centralised place for the information which would otherwise have at least in part to be duplicated somehow in 1000 or so articles. This is one of the main points of a wiki - the ability to link to a single, thus consistent and maintainable, source of some widely relevant content and related background. Although music parts and articles designed for musicians don't normally need to explain SATB, as a standard term of art, we must do so for our general readership. An argument for merging could be that a lot of content would otherwise be duplicated in this and the target article, but nobody seems to be suggesting that. Just moving the content to a separate section in another article seems pointless information hiding. --Mirokado (talk) 12:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Yes exactly. More than 1000 links you say. I would state such things are core encyclopeadic knowledge. scope_creep^Talk 14:12, 26 March 2022 (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.