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 as disambiguation page. Sandstein (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Modern music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Page contains no useful content (WP:NOT#DICT) Also possibly redundant because we already have musical modernism, 20th century music, and contemporary music. --S.dedalus (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. per nomination. --S.dedalus (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Keep and dabify: Might make a good disambiguation page. Bovlb (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might as well make it a "vote". Bovlb (talk) 22:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but convert to a disambiguation page. Innumerable academic references can be supplied for the term "modern music", but they generally refer to the articles listed above, also Contemporary classical music. dissolve^talk 08:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Dabify per User:Dissolve, looks like a plausible search term--Lenticel ^(talk) 08:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect somewhere (don't know where), or make into a disambiguation.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Dabify per above. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Modernism (music). I think that topic is a better target than Contemporary music. If we're concerned, I suggest a separate Modern music (disambiguation) page, rather than making Modern music the Dab. Torc2 (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Modernism (music) is usually understood to have a specific stylistic meaning. Modern music as I understand it does not. That’s why believe contemporary music may be a better target. --S.dedalus (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply I guess it depends on your frame of reference. I rarely hear the term "Modern" applied to music without it referring specifically to the Modernist era. Granted, that's totally anecdotal, but that's the reason for my vote. It also seems like it would make more sense to point to Modernism (music) and put a hatnote saying "For the article on recent developments in music, see Contemporary music" than it would be to point to Contemporary music and put a hatnote there for Modernism (music). I could also support the dab page, but it would be a pretty unconventional by WP:DAB standards since since very few articles we'd link to would actually include the phrase "modern music". Torc2 (talk) 21:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you search Google books, you'll see the term applied contextually to musical modernism and contemporary music about equally. You'll also see it applied to contemporary classical music and 20th century music. All of these topics, except 20th century music, are mentioned on contemporary music, so a redirect to contemporary music, but adding a section about 20th century music, could let that article act as a summary page rather than creating a (rather poor) dab page. dissolve^talk 21:51, 4 February 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.