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 redirect to Variation on a theme (disambiguation). MuZemike 17:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Variation on a theme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

A loose, bruad, and vague essay around the subject. Original research. The references cited are in support of some detail, but they not discuss the term in question: variation on a theme. Xuz (talk) 01:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose this is such a major topic for art history, It doesn't make any sense to delete it.--Sum (talk) 16:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE:This is the article's creator. Johnbod (talk) 12:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Having just had a similar experience with German art just before the Third Reich, a complete & unacknowledged copy of the relevant section of German art, I imagine all this has been copied from somewhere by the "creator" (who makes the previous comment). He says it is about art history, but all the content is about literature. Johnbod (talk) 12:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand how you may feel 'hurt' if your contributions (which I appreciate), are used in other articles. But this is part of wikipedia. And it's infantile to transfer your spite to deletion requests like this one.--Sum (talk) 12:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just think it is rubbish which should be removed. Where did it come from? I note your comment on my talk page "As far as I know, there is no explicit credit when material is copied within wikipedia itself" - see WP:SPLIT. Johnbod (talk) 12:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Evidence of copying: "Shakespeare uses the same kind of opening monologue so common in Plautus’s plays. He even uses a “villain” in The Comedy of Errors of the same type as the one in Menaechmi" comes from Drama, "He was not content to rest solely on a loyal adaptation that, while amusing, was not new or engaging for Rome. Plautus took what he found" is a copyvio from here -the book at 2, "Shakespeare uses the same kind of opening monologue so common in Plautus’s plays. He even uses a “villain” in The Comedy of Errors of the same type as the one in Menaechmi.." is copied from Plautus, and so on. The whole article is a magpie combination of snippets from somewhere else, which is why it makes no sense. Johnbod (talk) 12:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I have no doubt that it would be possible to write an encyclopedia article on the general concept of variation on a theme as it applies across all of the arts, but I don't see this as a useful basis on which to write such an article. This article has no sourced information about the concept, but only a list of examples in literature. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Significant addition to the article: I've just added a ref, from Stanford scholars, which testimonies how the expression variation on a them has been extensively used in legal disputes about art plagiarism.--Sum (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source describes an artist developing a theme that was present in one of his earlier works. The issue of copyright arose because the the artist had sold the reproduction rights to the earlier image. The courts eventually decided that there was no breach of copyright. The case has nothing whatsoever to do with plagiarism - an artist can't plagiarise his own work.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Johnbod (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have to wonder if this editor's WP contributions are intended as an illustration of this concept. If so, WP:POINT might apply. As to whether this is a valid topic, I believe it is (though broad), but the problem is, as Johnbod points out, that whole sections are appropriated elsewhere. I also have had the same experiences with this editor on German art just before the Third Reich, and so will abstain from voting. Lithoderm 21:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK it is a specific topic only in music, which of course this article ignores. The literary things the article actually covers are just similarities in plot or story structure. Johnbod (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment 'Variation on a theme' refers to music and an article on Variation (music) already exists. The application of the term to Shakespeare is original research. That the term is applied in sources to the visual arts makes no difference. It's just a phrase that has entered common usage. Musical metaphors and analogies are often used in art criticism. According to Art in America, Amadeo de Souza Cardoso's Stronghold (1912), "Is a stunning riff on Cubism with Art Nouveau undertones."[1] That doesn't make riff a term with a specific art historical meaning. It's just a word - and 'variation on a theme', outside of music, is just a phrase. I'm refraining from voting delete in case anyone wants to make this an interesting article about music.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:OR...Modernist (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Variation (music), which is what anyone typing this phrase into the search bar is likely to be looking for. — Gwalla | Talk 17:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is also Variation on a theme (disambiguation). Johnbod (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Variation on a theme (disambiguation). Lithoderm 23:19, 18 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.