Xenharmonic Wiki talk:Notability guidelines: Difference between revisions

I think that you should maybe consider if theoretical systems which can be ''practical'' (possible to apply to music and that the interpretation is not patently arbitrary / nonsensical) but not necessarily demonstrating a clear benefit over other systems, to be allowed under the notability criteria. I will give an example to make this more clear (although I can't really find any very good examples, I think I found one that is good enough to illustrate what I mean). This temperament [[Miscellaneous_5-limit_temperaments#Kangaroo]] in the 5-limit is of a high error with its ultrapyth fifth and exaggerated syntonic comma and is also moderately high complexity. I doubt it provides much of a "clear theoretical or conceptual benefit" over other temperaments with similar generators such as say the [[No-fives_subgroup_temperaments#Threedic]]. And there are no Kangaroo compositions I know of (unless you count 15edo as Kangaroo[15], 47edo as Kangaroo[47] etc.). So as far as I know this temperament would be rejected under your notability guidelines. But I don't think that Kangaroo temperament is ''useless'', 15edo supports it and there are some people who percieve that 15edo supports 5-limit, so it is probably possible to make compositions in that temperament with at least some perception of the 5-limit intervals it purports to have. This temperament probably has at least some compositional value , and deleting it from the wiki would remove potentially useful information if someone wanted to compose in that temperament.