Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Organ recital

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 20:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Organ recital
Joke article that previous editor should have done VfD vs. deleting text. JLaTondre 02:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Based upon rewrite, change my nomination to a Keep. JLaTondre 22:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Organ (music) &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 05:20, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Cleaner than a redirect. Wikipedia does not have articles entitled "cello recital", "piano recital" or "violin recital" so why start with Organ? Cje 07:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Why not start with the organ? It seems a good place to start, given that whilst people generally don't spend $1,000,000 on purpose-built violin recital halls, they definitely do for purpose-built organ recital halls. Uncle G 11:35:20, 2005-09-04 (UTC)
 * JLaTondre is wrong. 48v was quite right to tag the article for rewriting, rather than deletion, because it was rewriting, and not deletion, that it required.  The only thing that xe didn't do right was use the cleanup-rewrite tag that is there for this very purpose.  Xe could also have simply begun the rewrite xyrself, putting a stub in place.  Keep. Uncle G 11:35:20, 2005-09-04 (UTC)
 * If there was any content to rewrite, I would agree with you. However, 48v simply deleted what was there and left no content at all. Isn't cleanup supposed to be used for improving existing content? It doesn't seem like it should be used with a plea for someone to add content. Instead of cleanup, deleting and putting on the requested articles list seems to me what originally should have happened. However, I'm glad to see you and Alf put useful content in. I consider this VfD more of a success then if the article had been deleted. JLaTondre 22:06, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Cleanup can include a complete rewrite. Read the very wording of cleanup-rewrite.  That's its explicitly stated purpose.  Deletion is not the only tool in the toolbox, by a long chalk. Uncle G 02:03:49, 2005-09-05 (UTC)
 * KEEP (note admins I think that's the first time I've 'shouted' keep) Will do some on this myself. Alf melmac 12:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, could someone please explain why this is on VfD and not a bad faith? Sdedeo 18:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It's on AFD, and please read the article's edit history. There's no evidence of bad faith here.  All editors involved so far (subsequent to the article creation) have wanted to get rid of bad content and to make our encyclopaedia better.  Uncle G 18:55:35, 2005-09-04 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see, it was nominated, and then improved. Well done. Sdedeo 20:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Merge the damn thing! It belongs in organ (music). It doesn't need it's own article. / Peter Isotalo 22:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * As per the plan laid out at Talk:pipe organ/refactor it does not belong in that article, as that article contains "non-specialist material about organs in general". Since "organs in general" includes electronic organs, and since (a few electronic church organs aside) organ recitals involve pipe organs not electronic ones, the content is inappropriate there. Uncle G 02:03:49, 2005-09-05 (UTC)
 * If it doesn't fit in the main article, then it doesn't belong here. Never mind the merging. / Peter Isotalo 08:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It doesn't belong there because that article is about organs in general. Please read Talk:pipe organ/refactor and the explanation that I just gave, again. Uncle G 23:47:23, 2005-09-09 (UTC)
 * Keep. Good topic, reasonable article, lots of room for expansion. Merge and delete would of course cause GFDL problems, please see Deletion policy, and seems completely unnecessary to me. Andrewa 00:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I added a picture of a poster for a 1924 organ recital, now I re-read the usage description the tag for event poster makes, I'm not sure it can stay, unless fair-old is valid. Alf melmac 22:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep since it is a style of music in itself. --MacRusgail 14:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * No it's not. It's just another name for an organ concert. The article definition is too narrow. / Peter Isotalo 08:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. It's practically a genre by itself, try playing "Bicycle made for Two", "The Entertainer", "Rudolph, the Red-Nosed Reindeer", "Pack up your Troubles", "If I were a Rich Man", "Colonel Bogey March", "Papa Loves Mambo" and the like on a cathedral Organ (I could go on, if you like). Are Carlo Curly and Ji-yoen Choi world famous, major label record artists because they are "people who play at organ concerts" or because they are "organ recitalists" with a major following of the type witnessed at the last night of the proms? I would further argue that that description is so encompassing that it can be seen as a whole genre in itself. Further to which the article on concerts is in need of attention itself, it would not be helped by the inclusion of this there Alf melmac  10:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * PS In case anyone was wondering all the 'tunes' I list have been arranged specifically for either Wurlitzer or theatre organ, specifically requiring the use of 'effect stops' - cathedral organs tend to have either none or only one - a "cymbalstern".Alf melmac 22:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * If it isn't a distinct genre, I take it you'll propose merging "Symphony" with "Orchestra" as this is what they're normally played by. :) --MacRusgail 18:57, 10 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.