Talk:Septimal kleisma

Original research

This is "original research" (to use a euphemism), without sources or references. Good luck finding any references outside of a kind of ex-nihilo-hall-of-mirrors on the Internet, created by self-appointed "music theorists", but if you do, please put those references into this page. Frank Zamjatin (talk) 13:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of the term "septimal kleisma" in an academic journal, in a huge list of different intervals, is fine as a reference as far as I'm concerned (being found in more than one such list anyway), but only indicates that the term "septimal kleisma" belongs on an appropriate Wiki- list of musical intervals, tuning commas, something like that. It does NOT justify an entire article, especially when the article is "original research" using non-standard terms and conepts. Some references to "marvel temperament" and "tempering out" etc., or the move to delete goes up again. Frank Zamjatin (talk) 23:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter to me. I guess I just don't understand deletionism. Pfly (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also prefer not to delete. But the bulk of the article here is just that, bulk, probably aimed at bolstering the perception of validity of a particular music theory well off the beaten path. Personally I am a big, big fan of esoteric music theories well off the beaten path, the more and madder the better, but foisting them on the world at large via Wikipedia is such a transparent stunt that it only serves to further marginalize the theories and jepordize the status of whatever quality work may be found in them. There has been in fact a great deal of quality work in the "school" that cooked up the content of this article. The "school" is easy to find, just cut and paste some of the neologisms into a WWW search engine. Frank Zamjatin (talk) 01:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]