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.  Sandstein  18:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bach Cantatas Website (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable website with no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. It has been around for a while and has good information; that has nothing to do with notability. Some articles may even use it as a source, which is great. However, just because it has information on notable topics does not make it notable. Similarly, if I have information on canaries that does not make me a canary.

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 10:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Merge with Johann Sebastian Bach. TopGearFreak ^Talk 13:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Where's all this "good information" the nom mentions... the article looks like a stub to me. Furthermore, I can't see how this type of website could be notable in the field of music or JS Bach and everywhere I've looked has failed to give a discussion of the website. Themfromspace (talk) 20:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• strong keep: per nom: It has been around for a while and has good information. that's exactly what makes it notable. the scope of the website goes far beyond what is suggested by the title. the site has extensive information the actual cantatas including translations, tranpositions, sheet music; biographies and histories the groups individuals who not only perform the 200 or so catatas, but a wide range of classical music not specific that period. that its catering to a niche, or subgenre contributes to its not being as popular as imdb or gutenberg, can be debated, but given the depth and breadth of the information found there--and no where else as a collection--it certainly rises to the level of notability. --emerson7 23:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:NN, WP:WEB ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  your point is not made simply by listing a policy, that in my mind does not apply. no specific claims of non-notabilityness have yet been offered. --emerson7 17:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe the first sentence on this page would count, no?~ JohnnyMrNinja 22:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge With Johann Sebastian Bach. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry, but merge what? And how? What little text there is in this article would not be useful in the Bach article, nor would it be appropriate. It would perceived (and rightly-so) as linkspam. I don't see any benefit of a merge. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do. When the time comes to merge it, ring me up and I'll do it for you. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 12:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i'm sorry, but i don't get the argument for merge. it would be like merging the article on imb with harold prince, or broadway theatre. --emerson7 17:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. But a link to this website would make a worthy addition to the page List of cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article is at odds with criteria linked above. A merge with JSB would be out of place with the rest of that article, and in any case, BCW is (justifiably) already present in its external links section. It would indeed also make sense as an external link on the List of Cantatas page. JCHall (talk) 02:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: agree with nominator. JamesBurns (talk) 01:32, 28 November 2008 (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.