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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of symphonies by Robert Schumann[edit]

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

The list is, for one thing, very short and it covers material already dealt with in List of compositions by Robert Schumann. An article on the symphonies would probably work, but I don't think a mere list does. Herr Beethoven (talk) 04:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – 1) Is "being short" a valid reason to delete? 2) The subject is notable and presented consistent as part of Category:Lists of symphonies by composer. 3) This list is the only place where the symphonies' incipits are shown. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per point 2 of above. List passes WP:LISTN and WP:LISTPURP. Ansh6 6 6 16:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1) By itself, "being short" is not enough to delete something, but in combination with other factors, it might contribute. 2) The subject may be notable, but wouldn't you say it is already dealt with in the List of compositions by Robert Schumann? The symphonies are listed there, too. I was thinking of this guideline when I opened this discussion. As to the other lists in the category, three (Mozart, Haydn, Graupner) wrote a very large number of symphonies (definitely warranting a list), String symphonies (Mendelssohn) is formatted as an article rather than a list, and List of symphonies by Johannes Brahms was created by the same user in the same manner as this list. I probably should have made this a group nomination with both the Brahms and Schumann lists, but I wasn't aware of the Brahms list. 3) While pretty, I don't know if the incipits are really all that helpful or necessary. They might be used elsewhere, though (i.e. the symphony articles). Herr Beethoven (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say WP:Content fork applies to articles, not lists. If there was a section in the "List of compositions" page that was symphonies only, it might be less of a keep for me, but without, it's a more useful navigational tool than the "Orchestral compositions" section. Ansh6 6 6 17:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Herr Beethoven: 3) Those incipits are important and helpful exactly in List of symphonies by Robert Schumann because they tell me which symphony I'm looking for, without having to visit each symphony's article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable and a relevant sublist with extra detail. Agathoclea (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-defined list of a notable bulk of work. Needs expansion, not deletion. Them From Space 17:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No policy has been quoted as to why this list should be deleted. It was intended as a navigational tool to support other articles. If you think the article is in the wrong place or needs to be expanded in scope then I am happy to discuss that, however, I believe this article serves its purpose. I belive this article successfully treads the fine line between adequate detail to meet its purpose and so much data that it cannot be used as an internet resource. At present my only regret is that I have not had time to do more article like this. Op47 (talk) 18:41, 9 August 2013 (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.