Talk:Cantometrics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

from VfD:

Article contains nothing but quotes. RickK 05:51, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Comment Appears to have been listed *19 minutes* after being created by a bonafides editor. I've contacted Hyacinth as a courtesy to check whether he's finished working on it.Dr Zen 05:57, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • More than half the article is from the Middleton reference, does that constitute a copyvio? I never know these things when it comes to quoting. —siroχo 08:10, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm not familiar with this subject, but Google indicates that this is notable topic (some hits to www.britannica.com etc., maybe someone who has a copy of Encyclopedia Britannica could expand this article?) and I don't see any reason for deletion. It needs cleanup for the excessive quotes, but I don't think its a copyvio because it mentions the source it's quoting and the quotes aren't really page long. jni 10:40, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: the quotes are fair use. It seems like Hyacinth is aiming for a full, featured article. I hope that he cuts down some of the citational lumber eventually. It's an interesting field. Geogre 14:52, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep it. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 20:07, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. And tell Hyacinth that indiscriminately bunging quotes from sources into articles is not the preferred method for writing coherent articles. Though it does sometimes appear to be his preferred method. -- GWO

There is no ARTICLE there. If there were a discussion of the subject matter, then I could see keeping it. But there is nothing to keep. RickK 20:25, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

  • Comment. The article is now listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems (according to the {{copyvio}} template now on the article). Does it still need to be listed here? Hyacinth 06:15, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. The purpose of this page is to discuss and determine if Cantometrics should be deleted, not to discuss one's opinions of me. Thanks. Hyacinth 06:22, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Huh? I didn't say one WORD about you. What are you accusing me of? RickK 06:50, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
      • Rick, Hyacinth seems to be referring to GWO's comment above, where GWO implies that Hyacinth habitually creates articles like this. I don't believe he's addressing you. -leigh 08:57, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Cited quotes are not, in fact, copyright violations, as long as the original source is properly attributed. Attributions are a way of complying with copyright rather than a violation. Special consideration is also given to scholarly or educational work using such quotes, work such as an encyclopedia article. The Steve 21:08, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with using quotes, but there needs to be something to the article BESIDES just quotes. RickK 22:00, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
      • That was in response to it being listed at Copyright problems. I agree with you, but I also have a lot of patience for articles on potentially interesting subjects to grow at their own pace. No change of vote. The Steve 03:22, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • Let's be explicit here: publishing, on paper or on-line, something consisting of
      The DaVinci Code by Dan Brown is a great read, check this out:
    followed by the text of the novel (with or without quote marks), is a copyvio, even when done for educational purposes. Some other uses of attributed quotes are not. What User:Thesteve says above is at least technically false; more to the point, it is of no help in settling whether this article is a copyvio or not.
    --Jerzy(t) 02:32, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)
    • quote: A brief passage or excerpt. {emphasis mine} No, I am not wrong. Citing an entire work is not a "quote", at least not in the sense that I was using it. The Steve 07:58, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
      • Thank you for this clarification; we are probably in agreement. --Jerzy(t) 21:38, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)
  • Keep. The quotes are/were an excellent start and opportunity for expansion. Unfortunately, the expansion process has been interrupted by the vote for deletion and the copyvio accusation. — David Remahl 15:44, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm sympathetic to the work-in-progress argument, but you should have something substantial prepared before publishing the article. Do prep work offline, or in user subpages. Feel free to re-submit when you've written an article. Cribcage 19:44, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia builds on collaboration and iterative work, not on editors submitting done articles...Look at the edit histories of any important matter and you're likely to find that it started out as something really poor compared to what it is now. — David Remahl 19:49, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • You're missing the point. There's a difference between submitting an article which will grow and revise as the community builds on it, and expecting the community to transform a few poorly-arranged notes into a coherent article. As Rick has stated repeatedly, above: There's no article here.Cribcage 20:01, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep --Pjacobi 20:30, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The article has what all articles require and most articles lack: citations and verifiability. See: Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. The arguments for deletion seem to be the article is:

  1. Nothing but quotes/Excessive quotes/bunging
  2. Copyvio (copyright violation)
  3. Incoherent/poorly-arranged
  4. Not substantial

Please direct me to policies which forbid quotations, short articles, and imperfect prose. Please point to the text of the copyright and copyright violation policies which indicate the article is in fact a violation. Hyacinth 20:42, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Very weak delete: there's no there there. The article prior to copyvio blanking contained one complete sentence that wasn't a quote. The article doesn't need to be rewritten, it needs to be written. I don't think that it is/was a copyvio per se, and if the quotes given were incorporated into a decent article on the subject I'd vote keep. -Sean Curtin 00:29, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep rewritten article. -Sean Curtin 22:25, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] [After] total rewrite

  • It seemed to me that everyone was getting caught up in the VfD controversy rather than just getting their hands dirty and fixing it. Isn't that supposed to be the Wikipedia way? So I've Been Bold and rewritten the article. Can we all agree that Wikipedia should eventually have an article on this subject? Can we agree to keep the current version (building on Hyacinth's well-intentioned work) and improve it from there? -leigh 20:21, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Oh, and, uh, keep, obviously. -leigh 20:22, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC) [rfmt by Jerzy(t) 02:14, 2004 Nov 29 (UTC)]

end moved discussion

[edit] Copyvio listing

From Wikipedia:Copyright problems

  • Cantometrics from Lomax, Alan (1959). "Folk Song Style." American Anthropologist 61 (Dec. 1959): 927-54. [1] AND Middleton, Richard (1990/2002). Studying Popular Music. Philadelphia: Open University Press. ISBN 0335152759.
    • Completely rewritten in situ. Survived VfD; see Talk:Cantometrics. alleged copyvio remains in history, but I think we can probably delist this. --rbrwr± 12:36, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

End moved text

As User:Phthoggos also posted his rewrite on the /Temp page, I deleted the original and moved the rewrite in. The article had no history of substance after he posted the rewrite over the copyvio notice. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:17, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)


[edit] New edits begun

I have begun editing this entry, since Cantometrics is significantly more complicated than the stub could convey (and has a complicated reception as well...). This is probably too dense so far.Rikyu 22:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)