Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucy tuning

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 delete. Cirt (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy tuning

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

Non-notable musical tuning system. No reliable sources: the only source that isn't Charles Lucy himself is for John Harrison's earlier tuning that Lucy claims inspiration from. Nobody seems to use this tuning but Charles Lucy; supposedly it was used on a Siobhan Donaghy track, but the only source for that claim is Lucy's own site (the claim is repeated in Donaghy's article, but was an unsourced addition by IP, and Lucy is known to be a relentless self-promoter editing mostly through IPs). A lot of effort has been expended to clean this article up and excise some of the more blatantly promotional text, but I think it really doesn't belong here in the first place. — Gwalla | Talk 22:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —— Gwalla | Talk 23:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I agree with the nominator's comments. A while back I searched extensively for searches on 88-TET, and found it was no notable so I merged it into here but back then, concerns were raised about whether either were notable. I just searched and found nothing usable a a reliable, independent source. There are a few very brief mentions in google books, one is in a self-published book. This seems so far on the side of non-notability to me that I'm surprised it has survived for so long! Cazort (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I defended it last time, but I've changed my mind. Delete. beefman (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Sources include Haluska (2003). Hyacinth (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't able to read the full text of that book but lucy tunings do seem to appear on a few different pages, based on the index, but they don't have a section of their own and are mentioned only in the brief section "Further Examples of Mean Tone Systems". I also would say that because of the nature of this book, the mere mention of a tuning in this book is not enough to establish its notability--it's a book that reaches out to mention even the most esoteric tuning systems. From the book's description: "Includes hundreds of examples of past and prevalent tone systems". I'd say that that book would serve as a solid source, but I'm not convinced it's useful in this case for establishing notability. If it's the only independent source we can find, I think the best approach would be to write a sentence or two or maybe a paragraph or section (if there's enough material) on Lucy Tuning on the page for meantone tuning systems, because that is the context in which it is mentioned in that book. Cazort (talk) 00:13, 1 February 2010 (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.