Deletion of List of musical works in unusual time signatures

Comment: and split. Editors should then cull unsourced and non-notable works. Judging from Time signature, this sort of list probably does have a place in an encyclopedia if cleaned up, particularly as relating to concert music. There are  problems with the mass of unsourced modern entries, but as pointed out, deleting these is an editorial matter
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: at least one entry is well sourced - pruning of unsourced entries of the list is not a concern for AfD.  '''This article is incomplete, and likely to remain so''' is a terrible criterion for deletion.  It'd result in the deletion of most articles on wikipedia.  Nor is ''maintaining this article is a lot of work'' a good argument.  The article ''is'' being maintained - if someone wants to put in the time and effort to create a good article, it's hardly the wiki spirit to say "You're working too hard - stop building such a good encyclopaedia".   In the end, the article is '''sourced''' and it is '''encyclopaedic'''.  It fits well with .  It's in good shape.  There's absolutely zero reason to delete it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:LISTS)

Comment: Oh no, not again!"  What is unusual?  Who defines what is unusual with respect to a particular genre?  Is there systemic bias in the genres represented?  Or the dates?  Look how over-represented the last decade is within the list.  Do we have reliable sources for the time signatures of the more modern pieces, which are typically not published as sheet music?  Far More Blue and Far More Drums are the same piece, essentially, why two entries?  What about movements within other works, such as ''In Freezing Winter Night'' from Britten's Ceremony of Carols?  Is there an objective definition of what constitutes an unusual time signature in the context of a given genre, or is this just an end-run around the removal of articles like the list of songs in triple metre?  And as Newyorkbrad says, "a format that I don't believe is available anywhere else" - which is what we call |original research.   and  do not, I'm afraid, trump policy
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:INTERESTING||WP:USEFUL)

Comment: as |indiscriminate collection of information
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Wow, all these edit conflicts!  This nomination was not put up correctly, so I fixed it.  Delete per |Wikipedia is not an indiscrimanate collection of information
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)