Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Early Music Ensembles

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was Keep. Rje 23:55, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

List of Early Music Ensembles
"Early" relative to what? What qualifies as an "ensemble"? Current list seems awfully honky-centric. I'm not anti-list, but this topic seems better served by the Music in [year/decade] series. Also title is improperly capitalized. Niteowlneils 17:04, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I withdraw deletion nomination, but at a minimum it needs serious {cleanup} (and a proper title and de-orphaning and linking to Early music). A list with no context/definition other than a term that's probably unknown to 90% of the global population isn't very helpful. Niteowlneils 19:09, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Why nominate a page for deletion only to remove it two hours later! This is another example of the misuse of VfD - obviously good/useful articles (as reflected by every vote being a keep). Obvious keep --Oldak Quill 09:16, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Early music is what it's generally called. These ensembles are contemporary ensembles playing music that is in the genre. How can you detect the honkitude of the names of the ensembles on this list, anyway? And what difference does it make? (Note: there are a fair number of people of Asian ancestry playing early music; do they count as non-honkies?) Research a bit more before vfding, please. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 18:17, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. An "early music ensemble" is one that specializes in music of the European classical tradition from the Baroque era and before; the term is in common usage.  It's a pretty good start on the list, though some of the most famous ones are missing.  Also some of the groups on this list cross over into folk music, and perhaps a few other styles (for example, the Baltimore Consort).  Some day this subject will be covered by a category as well.  Please google "early music ensemble" (26,400 hits).  Antandrus 18:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It would have been nice if the article mentioned any of that, and wasn't an orphan. Niteowlneils 18:46, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I just added a few words to the top of the article; hope that helps for now. Antandrus 19:05, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Great--helps a lot--thanks. My dad was a public school music teacher for ~30 years, so I guess I assumed (incorrectly, obviously) that any common music jargon would at least 'ring a bell' for me. Niteowlneils
 * But it's not uncommon for lists not to provide any context other than their title. Perhaps clicking on a few of the entries on the list might have provided all the necessary context? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:18, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * None of the first three mention "early music", and the fourth needs to be dabbed, as it doesn't even refer to an ensemble. Niteowlneils 19:25, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve per jpgordon and Antandrus. Samaritan 18:50, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and allow for organic growth. What exactly is "honky-centric" and "honkitude"???  GRider\talk 19:27, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * moved to correct title. Gazpacho
 * Keep. I'm assuming this is some sort attempted joke VFD.--Centauri 21:52, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I think I've made it quite clear above that it was an honest mistake, that I've withdrawn. It happened to be my 15,000th edit--I would think that would allow people to cut me some slack for making a mistake. I will never understand why some VfD voters routinely violate official Wikipedia policy (No personal attacks), as well as semi-policy (Assume good faith). Niteowlneils 22:56, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a bit rich to claim that listing something on VFD using perjorative terms like "honky" without first bothering to spend 30 seconds checking on Google for actual notability is an "honest mistake", but I'm prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt this time round. Concerning editors who regularly violate policy, perhaps you should discuss the matter with them in the first instance.--Centauri 00:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem from me; it was clearly a good-faith addition to VfD. I'll try to make the article better later (can't now, at work)  Best regards, Antandrus 23:17, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is the second time this week that I've seen you insult somebody out of the blue for making a VfD nomination you disagreed with, Centauri.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 05:17, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Spinboy 00:06, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Should not have been nominated. A thoughtless waste of other users time. Philip 01:07, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I must note that is disheartening to see rude and thoughtless comments directed to an editor who made an honest mistake.  No harm is done in listing an article on vfd, but much harm is done to civility and a sense of community when we attack someone for such a minor mistake. Gamaliel 03:29, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It isn't a minor mistake to nominate an article which isn't patent nonsense without doing any research. A google search is all that is required. Spurious listings on vfd are harmful on two counts: timewasting, and more importantly that they are a slap in the face to honest contributors and a threat to the ability of Wikipedia to retain editors. There are several cautions against hasty nominations on the guidance pages. Philip 04:55, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * There are many other things which waste far much more time than the occassional mistaken listing, like vanity pages which unfortunately can't be speedied. I don't see why some people stubbornly refuse to cut our fellow contributors some slack in cases like this, especially when they acknowledge it was an honest mistake. Rude responses to minor mistakes and refusal to assume good faith are far more of a "slap in the face to honest contributors" and much more of a "threat to the ability of Wikipedia to retain editors" than a harmless and quickly forgotten vfd listing. Gamaliel 05:59, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It would be a far better idea for all editors to avoid using VFD to list articles about which they obviously know nothing. VFD is not a sandpit for the ignorant.--Centauri 07:38, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * (Personal attack removed) Gamaliel 17:27, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Whatever, I'm not going to continue an edit war over this nonsense. Apparently here calling people ignorant is okay but pointing out that it's rude to call people ignorant is a "personal attack". Gamaliel 22:24, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Read the policy. --Centauri 22:26, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Just as soon as you read Civility and Wikietiquette. Gamaliel 22:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Keep. While I am generally an inclusionist, I don't believe in attacking people who nominate articles for deletion. It gives us the opportunity to sort the wheat from the chaff. However, the use of the word honky in the nomination was a mistake. I would plead with everyone to maintain Wikiquette in the discussions.Capitalistroadster 09:23, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Y'know, I started the snarkiness here in the very first response up above. Sorry, everyone. I'll try to mind my manners more carefully. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 07:07, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)