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 no consensus. So Why 11:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC) reply

An Wasserflüssen Babylon (Reincken)

An Wasserflüssen Babylon (Reincken) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Seems to be a forked article with no proper description of the composition in the main body and no reliable secondary sources devoted to the composition. It is mostly copy-pasted with some modifications from An Wasserflüssen Babylon. Might be reasonable to write a proper self-standing article, but that has not happened so far. Mathsci ( talk) 13:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Redirect and userfy. It is reasonable that an article on this topic be written as a stand-alone article but so far no substantial content has been written on the main body, i.e. the organ composition by Johann Adam Reincken. Forked content copy-pasted from An Wasserflüssen Babylon has been written, with sources copied from that article. There are also some reliable secondary sources not included, almost all originating from the musicologist Ulf Grapenthin. For that reason I recommend that the content be userfied until some kind of readable content be created. I do not see any reason to merge An Wasserflüssen Babylon, since one longish sentence suffices to describe Reincken's composition (and the section from the main body). Mathsci ( talk) 13:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 April 2. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 15:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep and procedural close of this AfD:

• Reasons for "Keep" were already explained at Talk:An Wasserflüssen Babylon (Reincken)#Split from article on Dachstein's "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" hymn.
• Reasons for "procedural close of this AfD": AfD is not the correct process to request a "redirect and userfy" as the OP did, merge and split proposal tags + talk page discussion are. The OP has removed the split proposal tag *which contained a link to the relevant talk page discussion (see previous point)* at least half a dozen times (four times in the last 24h), without even once commenting on the talk page where the "redirect and userfy" discussion should have taken place in the first place. So, at this point the split from the " An Wasserflüssen Babylon" hymn article is uncontested per the regular procedure, and I don't see why I should be talking to myself in the Talk:An Wasserflüssen Babylon (Reincken)#Split from article on Dachstein's "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" hymn talk page section if everyone who commented there agrees the topic merits an article in its own right. This AfD is just a spurious excuse to skip regular procedure, i.e. talk page discussion if the OP proposes a "redirect and userfy". -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 16:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• For clarity, I oppose the "redirect and userfy" idea: there's no reason for that, for the reasons explained at Talk:An Wasserflüssen Babylon (Reincken)#Split from article on Dachstein's "An Wasserflüssen Babylon" hymn and in this edit summary. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 16:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment The edits on "music" ("musical analysis"?) come directly from the score (IMSLP?). They constitute original research and synthesis. The book of Pieter Dirksen on Heinrich Scheidemann has been briefly mentioned en passant but there are no properly sourced edits on the composition of Johann Adam Reincken (so far). AfD's are decided by consensus amongst interested users. Mathsci ( talk) 01:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Supplementary comment. I am due to acquire two lengthy prefaces in English on the complete organ works of Reincken. They are edited by Klaus Beckmann (Schott Music, 2004) and Pieter Dirksen (Breitkopf & Härtel, 2005). As far as I am aware, these English versions are not available on-line (the ISBN references are available). These seem to be amongst the best sources for the current proposed article. They have not so far been used. The same applies to material from Grove Music Online ( Oxford University Press), which so far has not been used. That includes valuable content related to the chorale prelude on the stylus fantasticus, Reincken's musical influence on the Hamburg opera and the collegium musicum. Again I do not see any way the main article An Wasserflüssen Babylon could be merged in a meaningful way. Mathsci ( talk) 08:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment – Since the AfD listing was initated:
  • Nine additional sources
  • Content expanded & referenced
  • Images, music examples etc.

IMHO this AfD is as moot as can be. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 22:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC) reply

More refs added, and in the mean while another editor ( Rathfelder) de-stubbed the article, again suggesting there is no reason to keep this AfD discussion going for no relevant reason whatsoever. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 14:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Technical comments. Multiple images have been appropriated from the main article without attribution: see e.g. file1 and file2. There are multiple lilypond coding errors in images (<score vorbis="1"> instead of <score>). One of the main sources, "Bach: The Learned Musician" by Christoph Wolff (2000), has been superseded by 2005 research: the article does not take that into account. Stinson's sourced content on BWV 653 has been shuffled randomly, including into different sections: it is unrecognizable and misleading in the new context. Userfying still seems to be the only option. Mathsci ( talk) 03:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC) reply

  I have no opinion about the merits of this article, but it is clearly not a stub. Stub is primarily a measure of quantity, not quality. Rathfelder ( talk) 17:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Subsidiary comments. On 14 April 2018, I received soft back copies of Reincken's complete organ works, edited by Pieter Dirksen (Breitkopf, 2005) and Klaus Beckmann (Schott, 2008, 2nd edition). Both have a long commentary in English: when that exists, there is no reason to use a German version. Both versions are playable on the organ and the baroque registration is carefully described. (Schott's is in a more standard format for organists, i.e. A4 R.) It is almost impossible to reconcile the English prose commentary of Dirksen and Beckmann with the fork article. A general wikipedia reader would be able to read the prose commentary without problem; but the fork article is inpenetrable, almost as if unrelated to the baroque organ. Both editors give a biographical account of Reincken, including the relationship with Scheidemann and Buxtehude: the fork does not provide any proper context and seems to have been created by cherry-picking sentences. Both of the editors give detailed footnotes (citations), none of which have been included in the fork article. The sources, history and transmission of the works are described in detail by Beckmann, but that appears to be too technical for inclusion on wikipedia. Authenticity is only discussed for the fugue and toccata. There is a discussion on ornamentation, which, according to Beckmann, is already so carefully worked out in Reincken's transmitted sources, that any further ornamentation should only be used sparingly. The historical organ played by Reincken in Hamburg is described in detail by both editors. The reception describes the typical prejudices of late 19th-century commentators such as August Gottfried Ritter, who gives a withering account of Reincken's fantasia, "His frequently and respectfully mentioned work does not contain a trace of the elegaic melancholy of the chorale [...] one lays down this piece of work [...] this fruit of great efforts, with a feeling of disappointment and uneasiness." Beckmann gives facsimiles for the chorale in tablature notation and at the beginning of Altnickol's stave version. On Page 83 Dirksen gives what he calls a tabulated description of the chorale: it contains 10 lines, giving the bar numbers and the German text. The description in the forked article seems barely related to Dirksen's commentary. All of Dirksen's footnotes have been omitted in the fork. The registration of the chorale is explained by both editors with "O" used as Oberwerk and "R" as Rückpositif: no description of that has been given. The attempt to convert Dirksen's prose into some kind of list format, particularly in the attempted "musical analysis," has not been successful. Userfying seems like the only reasonable option. I still cannot see what could be merged from the original article. Mathsci ( talk) 07:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Wikipedia articles are summaries, not a complete rendering of the entire content of a source. E.g. a detailed description of the organ would, in Wikipedia's surroundings, be more appropriate at St. Catherine's Church, Hamburg#Organ (or in a separate article about the organ) than in the An Wasserflüssen Babylon (Reincken) article. Most of the content mentioned above is duly summarized, e.g. August Gottfried Ritter's rejection of the piece is mentioned in the reception section of the article (etc). Of course none of this is necessarily a final version of the article, but as written it is adequate and appropriate for Wikipedia's mainspace. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 07:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• In this case, the cumulative edits of User:Francis Schonken are either (1) appropriated without proper attribution or (b) constitute original research and synthesis (so not in "the voice of wikipedia"). The attempt at "musical analysis" seems to be some kind of parody. Having examined most of the documents (including in the Anderson Room of the University Library, Cambridge), my impression is that these edits have not been made with access to the main reliable secondary sources and thus cannot be verified. One four-page German extract has appeared (essentially by happenstance), but so far that is all. Without the English versions, the fork article seems misleading and confing to general wikipedia readers. Mathsci ( talk) 10:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Nothing has been "appropriated without proper attribution" (where do you get that? – please explain); There is no " original research and synthesis" (everything is duly referenced to reliable sources – not even the minutest detail has been demonstrated thus far as being OR ofr SYNTH). There is nothing "misleading and confing to general wikipedia readers" – on the contrary, I'm not the one advocating the article would be rewritten for performing organists, it is written for a general readership. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 10:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC); typo correction 10:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
• A complete objective assessment has been given as requested. In my case, I paid 50 pounds for two scores: in addition to having the English versions, I had the pleasure of sight-reading the chorale on a 1705 baroque organ. Mathsci ( talk) 10:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • re. "A complete objective assessment has been given" – incorrect. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 10:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment. There are only 2 votes. 1 delete (the nom) and 1 keep. The 2 contributors appear to be expert in their field and I could not vote at their level of competence in this field. Szzuk ( talk) 20:47, 2 May 2018 (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.