Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Contemporary classical

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge with Contemporary classical music --cesarb 08:48, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Contemporary classical

Another imaginary music genre, this time 21st-century classical music. Googling the phrase "contemporary classical" would be useless, however.—Wahoofive (talk) 00:15, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. "Contemporary classical music" gets 39,800 hits... why, exactly, is googling useless in this situation? -- BD2412 ^talk 01:33, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
  • Merge with Contemporary classical music, per votes below. -- BD2412 ^talk 13:34, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
• Question: How is 21st-century classical music imaginary? DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:41, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --- I'm guessing that Wahoofive thinks that a large number of hits is meaningless because both "contemporary" and "classical" are common words. However. If you search as a phrase, you still get over 100,000 hits, and many seem to describe a genre. Also if you Google for the individual composers described in the article, you will find hundreds of articles for each one describing them as "contemporary classical". ----Isaac R 01:54, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Just because you don't listen to it doesn't mean it's imaginary... (comment by Matjlav at 02:02, 11 Jun 2005)
  • Please don't make personal attacks. For your information, I'm a music professional and am very familiar with all the composers mentioned in the article. They just don't have anything in common other than being alive in the 21st century.—Wahoofive (talk) 15:41, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • P.S. the merge to Contemporary classical music, mentioned below, seems reasonable.—Wahoofive (talk) 15:41, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep (vote changed to Merge) - I fail to understand your reasoning that googling is useless. Google "Contemporary classical". --Barfooz (talk) 02:56, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete: The reason the Google test is irrelevant is that "contemporary" as an adjective applied to "Classical" as an adjective is going to generation bazillions of hits for "contemporary recording of classical music" and "contemporary classical recording," etc. I.e. it's not going to reveal a genre. So that's that. As for the reason for deletion, the term is an oxymoron. See Classical music: the term refers to a particular type of serious music, not all serious music. I.e. there is Romantic music, Baroque music, Classical music, minimalist music, serialist music, abstract music, etc., all of which are called, by people who don't study music, "classical music." So, is there a neo-Classicism movement underway right now that is a genre? If so, it has entirely escaped the notice of the music press. Geogre 03:35, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment

http://contemporary-classical.com/

Google: "contemporary classical" + genre [1]

Also, if you look at the google search for "contemporary classical" [2] you will see that the word after "contemporary classical" is almost without fail "music" or some adjective that modifies "music". The point I'm trying to make is that this is a genre. Also, I don't think that most people know that there's a difference between "romantic", "baroque" and "classical", and they group them all under "classical" - that seems to be what's going on with this term: if symphonic instruments are used in music, we call it "classical" --Barfooz (talk) 04:22, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Adding an adjective to a noun does not always result in an actual subject. Vonspringer 03:54, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Change to Merge with contemporary classical music and redirect. I am sympathetic to the valid point that this label is oxymoronic; however, it has currency among many fans, including me, and this shown by Google. I suspect, perhaps, that we imprecise Americans use a term that is vexing to those who love accuracy. Nevertheless, the term is widely used. Xoloz 04:04, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Contemporary classical music - I'm not sure if a comment is necessary. -Acjelen 04:27, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Or Merge with 20th century classical music (even though we are now in the 21st century, many of the same composers are covered in this article). It seems we are getting a lot of articles covering the same ground in different ways. This is probably not really a VfD issue but calls for someone who knows what they are doing to be BOLD. DS1953 04:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Contemporary classical music which covers music in the past 50 years. 20th century classical music obviously covers all of the 20th century. 21st century classical music redirects to the contemporary classical music article. Capitalistroadster 04:52, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Contemporary classical music and add redirect. JamesBurns 05:20, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per User:Capitalistroadster. DoubleBlue (Talk) 13:31, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Contemporary classical music. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 23:24, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Contemporary classical music and add redirect. --Idont Havaname 18:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.