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. Consensus is clear, and I agree also. One of the few times I concurr that a list limited to subject of notable Wikipedia articles is in fact not suitable,, because it is enormously too broad. DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of public domain musical works[edit]

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

I have serious concerns with this claim: "this list [of musical works] is restricted to those which have a Wikipedia article." What about the non-existing articles about important and notable old compositions? I don't think Wikipedia should have an article covering public domain musical works selected by the presence in this project. I don't think Wikipedia should cover this topic at all, as there are thousands of compositions in public domain, and maintaining such a long list would be simply impossible. Projects such as IMSLP serve that purpose far better. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(From my talk page) There shouldn't be any notable musical works which don't have Wikipedia articles and there shouldn't be any non-notable musical works which do have Wikipedia articles. The reason for the restriction is because otherwise it would contain be thousands of compositions, as you said. Just because another website has information on something does not mean Wikipedia should not bother. Our list is more accessible. McLerristarr / Mclay1 11:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why this article should be deleted. It was only created an hour ago. It's clearly nowhere near finished but once it is, it will be very useful. Far more useful than List of public domain tangos and just as useful as List of films in the public domain in the United States. McLerristarr / Mclay1 11:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Of course there are plenty of notable musical works which don't have Wikipedia article, this is not a perfect world. Any list based solely on the presence of the subject on Wikipedia is inappropriate, in my opinion. I have no problem with the List of public domain tangos, but this topic is too broad for a single list. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me an example of a notable musical work that does not have a Wikipedia article? It's highly unlikely, given all the non-notable bollocks that gets deleted from Wikipedia every day, that someone would have overlooked an important musical work. There are articles on every composition by Beethoven, Mozart etc. There are plently of articles on very minor things so it's unlikely someone would have missed out something notable. McLerristarr / Mclay1 11:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can give you hundreds of examples, Mclay1. Do you really think that this encyclopedia is completed? Uff ... I miss all the beautiful recorder concertos by Vivaldi, ranked among the most important works of the recorder repertoire, but this is unimportant. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "works" is not defined, and i dont think can be defined. If the list is of classical scores, they are all well documented on other lists. Even when limiting it to classical works, the list is too broad, and the nightmare of trying to determine which more recent works have become public domain is daunting. we have List of films in the public domain in the United States and List of public domain tangos which have a smaller scope, and are referenced. List of TV series with episodes in the public domain is an example of a poorly thought out list (as this is also), as it has no references and the target articles may not mention public domain status. It seems the use of such a list has to do with more recent creative works, where the issue of public domain is not always settled obviously. of course, its a trivial act to list all the notable classical pieces more than 100 years old, but why? that would essentially duplicate any lists of non-modern classical works. PS if its saved, the criteria for having a WP article should be stripped from the lead and placed as hidden text. usually, stand alone lists can have redlinks if the link has a reference showing notability, but i doubt we have many not written up yet.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Musical works' is used many times on Wikipedia, including in article and category names. It has an obvious meaning. The list has no references because no sooner had I created, it was already nominated for deletion. I had no chance to get any references. The 9 current list items are definitely in the public domain, I don't think anyone would argue otherwise. List of films in the public domain in the United States is exactly the same concept as this list, only for films rather than music. I don't see the difference. Films enter the public domain every year and that list is very far from complete. Old musical works are also far more noteworthy than old films. McLerristarr / Mclay1 13:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above; no way could we ever narrow this enough to a reasonable list. The name is way too broad. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The number of musical works in the public domain is just colossal, for instance, most of the canon of classical music would qualify. Even sticking to well-known works, the list would become so long as not to be useful to anyone. May I courteously suggest to User:Mclay1 that finding just one single composer and making sure his/her works are all documented on WP would be a far more useful task? Opus33 (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in classical music. I just saw an opportunity for a very useful list, such as very similar ones that are already in existence. McLerristarr / Mclay1 13:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can see a category for these, but a list has no chance of being comprehensive... and one wonders whether such a trait would even be desirable. Most categories can reasonably have lists attached, but I don't see this as one of those. Jclemens (talk) 00:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments above. --Klein zach 01:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia already has a record of the public domain guidelines for music, I believe; people are hopefully smart enough to figure out for themselves if a piece is public domain. Also, yeah, this would be a ridiculously extensive list. Roscelese (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per much of the above discussion. If maintained, the list would become unmanageably long. I can't see any useful purpose to this list that couldn't be better served by a category. And since different countries have different copyright periods, would you include works that are public domain only in some territories? --Deskford (talk) 10:10, 8 September 2010 (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.