Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs with chromatic harmony

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. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 01:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs with chromatic harmony

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

This seems to me to fall under WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. The presumed final state of this page would be a list of all notable songs which modulate or display more than 3--4 chords of harmony. I'm guessing there are thousands of such songs with articles on Wikipedia. If this information does belong in an encyclopedia, perhaps a series of categories might be a better way to organize it. platypeanArchcow (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It would be easy to create a long list of things wrong with the article and say delete. However, what it really needs is some tender loving care - having a list of examples of chromatic harmony is a good thing. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Userful for obvious reasons, though presumably not obvious enough to whoever proposed the deletion. There may be problems, on a song by song basis, avoiding OR and finding RS for the inclusion of this or that particular song On the other hand one may argue this falls under WP:BLUE and that the RS is the song itself. In any case this article, in principle, has value and a place in WP. Contact Basemetal here 15:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete This actually seems to be "examples of all modulations and accidentals using popular songs from the 1950s onward" except that it doesn't actually point out where the modulations occur, so in that regard it is pretty useless. Behind this, however, is the reality that modulation is an incredibly common technique that as a rule wouldn't be considered chromaticism per se. There are probably some examples of true chromaticism out there in non-jazz pop music, but this list isn't it, and it wouldn't be organized this way at any rate. Mangoe (talk) 14:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (Reposted from above). This page has become a valuable source of information for a variety of users, including music educators, music students, and curious listeners alike. The current format (i.e. categories & tables), while perhaps not ideal, caters to the needs of the widest possible audience for this information. The suggestion to restructure this page as a series of categories has both advantages and disadvantages. While reformatting might yield a cleaner presentation, it would also hide potentially useful information about chromatic harmony, such as the relative frequency of given structures. It may be possible to move the song examples for each structure (e.g. secondary dominants) to their appropriate wiki pages (i.e. it seems natural for an encyclopedia page to include examples). In doing so, presumably all examples from the current page could be moved to their associated wiki pages, and weak examples would be removed in the course of time. It seems important to iterate here that the information amassed on this page has value, and that it would be a shame to discard this collective knowledge. I would propose leaving the page intact until the information can be copied elsewhere. Jplazak (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)jplazak[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.