Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Requiem (Mozart)/Tuba mirum

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. NW (Talk) 00:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requiem (Mozart)/Tuba mirum[edit]

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

Malformed "sub-page" of, I think, Requiem (Mozart). What actually exists on these pages is trivial, and seems to already be covered in the main page. Since the "sub-pages" are inappropriate in the mainspace, they should probably be deleted. They used to be located on their own pages, which may be a good place to create redirects (Tuba mirum → Requiem (Mozart)), but one way or another these presdu-subpages should be deleted.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 04:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason as above:

Absolutely keep if we have no article on Tuba mirum at Wikipedia. This is a highly notable subject and thus this proposal is damaging to our project. Refine or improve our coverage of Tuba mirum before making proposals such as this one. Earlier versions of this article, under a different title, did cover this subject quite well. Badagnani (talk) 04:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but why are these now sub-articles of the Requiem (Mozart) article? We're not supposed to create sub-pages in article space (it's OK to do on talk pages, but sub-pages anywhere else are normally CSD candidates). Aside from that, if an earlier version of these articles was better... what happened? I'd rather never delete any articles, so if there's a way to move and edit these so that their acceptable then I'm very willing to do that. Call it lack of imagination on my part if you'd like, but I simply can't imagine a means to edit these articles to be proper articles right now. One of the largest problems that I see is that what little info exists in the current articles already seems to exist in Requiem (Mozart). I'm also extremely confused by the fact that Tuba mirum currently redirects to Dies Irae. If these are supposed to be spin out articles, what article are they spinning out from?
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 04:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a malformed page as is the Recordare. WP articles don't have sub-pages like this. At the very minimum, they should be retitled, e.g. Tuba mirum (Mozart Requiem), Recordare (Mozart Requiem), etc. Note that in 2007 an anonymous IP removed the (rather flaming and unreferenced) commentary from the Tuba mirum[1]. The articles are capable of expansion in terms of musical analysis, but at the moment the contents are utterly trivial (apart from the assignment of voice types to each section) and already available at Wikisource. Voceditenore (talk) 08:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It's taken me a bit to figure out what the nominator meant by subpage, since subarticles are standard in namespace. I agree that article names should not have slashes in them, but the obvious solution is to move the page back to Tuba mirum, which could be rewritten from the article history. I dont see a need for a well-formed subarticle titles like Tuba mirum (Mozart), certainly not yet. Sparafucil (talk) 08:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with re-naming it simply Tuba mirum is that that this article refers only to the setting by Mozart not to the sub-section of the Dies Irae which is used in the Catholic and Anglican liturgies (and has had many different musical settings). It would be misleading to the reader to simply name it Tuba mirum as if Mozart's were the only one. Note also that the moment Tuba mirum redirects to Dies Irae but Tuba Mirum (capital M) redirects to Requiem (Mozart)/Tuba mirum, which is even more misleading. It needs to be sorted out. Voceditenore (talk) 08:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you for explaining that. Untangling what redirects to what, and the meaning of all of these pages, is a large part of the problem here. The content distinction between Dies Irae and Requiem (Mozart) is obviously important and necessary, but these sub-pages really aren't. I would have simply merged and redirected the articles if I could have figured out the best way to do that, but the existence of two different redirect pages and the malformed titles lead me here instead. I really can't see that we're loosing anything with deletion here anyway, are we?
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 08:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Something definitely needs to be done – either properly re-naming the articles to reflect that they are about Mozart's setting and hope they'll be expanded, or redirecting them to Requiem (Mozart) and merging what little information there is into that article. I've asked WikiProject Classical music to comment. Voceditenore (talk) 09:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Classical music– Voceditenore (talk) 09:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Let's deal with one thing at a time. Do we need a stub article on this section of the Mozart Requiem? No. On that I venture there will be near universal agreement from WP:CM. I think we can scratch Badagni's vote above as he seems confused as to the subject under discussion. An article on Tuba mirum may indeed be salutary and should be considered separately from this. Eusebeus (talk) 10:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Requiem (Mozart)/Tuba mirum and Requiem (Mozart)/Recordare. Redirect both Tuba mirum and Tuba Mirum to Dies Irae or to a newly created Tuba mirum (disambiguation). Suggest copying relevant information (if any) from the deleted articles to Talk:Requiem (Mozart) for editors to incorporate into that article. Voceditenore (talk) 10:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I moved both articles ([2], [3]) to their current names in 2007, because their then names "Tuba mirum" and "Recordare" were misleading, like Voceditenore explained above. I always held the view, that these articles might better be deleted or at least merged into the Mozart-Requiem main article (Talk:Requiem (Mozart)/Tuba mirum#Delete?, Talk:Requiem (Mozart)/Recordare). --FordPrefect42 (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Requiem (Mozart)/Tuba mirum and Requiem (Mozart)/Recordare. Besides the points made above, original texts should be in WikiSource, not in Wikipedia. --Klein zach 13:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you look at the talk page, you'll note that the page USED to be about the invented instrument by Peter Schickele. I almost wonder if the page should be reverted back to the state it was in before that changed (there's articles on Tromboon and Lasso d'amore too). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm ready, willing, and able (as much as time allows) to capture and move any information on the page or in the history to wherever may be appropriate. Personally though, I'm just not sure what really needs "saving", so to speak. I see the discussion about the instrument on Talk:Requiem (Mozart)/Tuba mirum, but... well, regardless of if myself or someone else pulls that and other info out into a new article or an existing article (and that would be a good conversation to continue, I think), in the end I still think that these articles should be deleted.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 15:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on comment If you look at Talk:Requiem (Mozart)/Tuba mirum#Please move former content, you'll note that the instrument erroneously decribed as Tuba mirum here is in fact the Pastaphone, so there is no content worth of being preserved. Though I love the P.D.Q. Bach works, there is not very much more to be said about both these instruments, as is already in Peter Schickele#P. D. Q. Bach. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this should be a section of the main article about the Requiem. I think there's no reason to have articles about individual movements of pieces. A piece, a work, a symphony, a sonata it's the sum of it's movements.--Karljoos (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am intrigued by Badagnani's vehement defense of this article, on the grounds that there should be an article on the Tuba Mirum in general (am I understanding you right, Bad?). What do you envision being in an article like this, other than a list of settings from various masses? --Ravpapa (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article should be a disambig mentioning the Latin text as well as the Schickele-invented instrument. There should be two separate articles covering these two things. Badagnani (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is there to be disambiguated? The Latin text is no work of its own, but part of the Dies irae, which has an article; neither is Mozart's composition a work of art of its own, but part of his Requiem, which also has an article; and the notability of Schickele's instrument is doubtable. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move: Tuba mirum is a recognizable chunk of Dies irae, set as a separate movement by Mozart, Berlioz and others, and is used as well as an organ stop name and by Schickele; it also evokes the last trump and the die letzte Posaune that are the subject of much painting. No one (I think) is arguing for the present article, but If it's deleted and recreated, the article history is lost. Sparafucil (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to what? In the original Dies Irae, Tuba Mirum is 3 lines. Various composers 'chunk' the Dies Irae differently. Verdi combines Tuba mirum and Mors stupebit. Mozart chunks it all the way down to Quid sum miser. In the Polish Requiem, it seems to constitute a movement on its own. Take a look at Tuba mirum (disambiguation). If it is a concern to keep the edit history, perhaps redirect to that? But what is there of value in the edit history? A completely erroneous description of the Schickele instrument [4], the text of Mozart's setting which although called the Tuba Mirum incorporates several other parts of the Dies Irae + a completely unreferenced and POV description [5]. There's nothing to stop anyone from creating an article solely on Mozart's movement or on Schickele's instrument, if they want (not a good idea in my opinion), or expanding the relevant sections of Requiem (Mozart) and Peter Schickele (a much better idea). But I fail to see the value of keeping either of the current articles and their histories. Voceditenore (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both and point readers to proper place from main article: Though their content is hardly trivial—they simply give us the "lyrics" (!) or rather the text—all of this content actually already appears in Dies Irae. Direct the Mozart audience there and problem solved. Any futher discussion of Mozart's "movements" needs to be on Requiem (Mozart). --Jubilee♫clipman 00:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Badagnani, your reply does not convince me. Having an article which is simply a collection of settings of the Tuba Mirum from various masses seems simply the wrong way to go about this. If all these settings had something really remarkable in common (for example, they were all in the same key, or they all used the bassett horn or whatever that strange instrument is), then I would agree that there is justification for a separate article. But as far as I know, that is not the case. We don't have separate articles on "Un Bel Di" or "Caro Mio Ben" either. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Move lyrics to wikisource first if you don't want to lose them. There's no precedent for movement-specific child articles and there's no need for ones here either.DavidRF (talk)

Delete already. Ratagonia (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2009 (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.