Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Con brio

:{{la|Con brio}} ([{{fullurl:Con brio|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Con brio}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor is it a glossary of musical terms. Powers ^T 20:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Redirect to Glossary of musical terminology. Hairhorn (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep & cleanup Redirect I've done a brief rewrite thinking that keep was where I was heading - but then investigated further and found Tempo#Common qualifiers, which is probably a better redirect because it gives the association described in the stub. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• Con brio is a style direction, not tempo, though. (I believe it's listed on the tempo article because it's often suffixed to a tempo (e.g., allegro con brio). Powers ^T 12:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• But when one comes across con brio by itself allegro is implied. One certainly wouldn't play adagio or even andante given such a direction. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Well yes, but the opposite is true of dolce and I don't think anyone would consider that to be a tempo direction. Powers ^T 18:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

: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.