Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4-string banjo

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was Keep. (Non-admin closure) All parties, including the nominator, have achieved consensus that cleanup, not deletion is the answer here. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

4-string banjo

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is factually inaccurate or, at the very least, titled in such a way that makes it completely misleading. The fact that it cites no references just makes it that much worse. Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep None of the cited reasons are reasons for deletion; they are reasons for copy-editing. Template it to death, and maybe someone with enough knowledge of the instrument will come by and fix it. --(AfadsBad (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

The section for this instrument in the banjo article is already far more detailed than this stand alone article. Its redundant and woefully inadequate. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both five and four string banjos are significant stand alone article topics, while the banjo article could be better developed into a general article without the two large chop-out sections. The four- and five-string American banjos, just the strummed and picked instruments without the variations, are major instruments alone and merit their own articles. A featured article on the resonator five string would be awesome. (AfadsBad (talk) 13:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Agreed - But the current version is garbage. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't exactly disagree with that. However, I think that the individual article could get the necessary type of attention it needs, but that the topic is lost in the banjo article with the heavy emphasis on picking banjos. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Keep A legitimate content fork from Banjo. The correct solution to an unreferenced article is this, not send it to AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not recommending a permanent delete, just of the current drivel. A proper article needs to be constructed. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Banjo#Four-string banjos for now. The content of the article is weak and biased towards the Brazilan variant. Eventually, the right thing to do is to split the four-stringers out of the banjo article. I've tried to beef that up in the past, but finding reliable sources that trace the history of the different four-string variations was an obstacle.—Kww(talk) 18:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - in hindsight this would have been a better move. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of sources, but part of the problem is the current section puts all four string banjo into the same class, whereas some were intermediate instruments along the way of developing other instruments. Still, I much prefer a separate article. --(AfadsBad (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

In the long-term, the right answer is to have an overview section in banjo, most of the content of Banjo#Four-string banjos in 4-string banjo, and breakout articles per type when there's enough material (see bass banjo for an example). In the short term, the current content of 4-string banjo should just be a paragraph in Banjo#Four-string banjos.—Kww(talk) 20:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any recommendation of a similar article to use as template both in term of the instrument varieties and their respective history? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 02:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've put some examples on my talk page, but just to recap here - look at clarinet (a GA) and its breakout articles E-flat clarinet and bass clarinet for some suggestions. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As the initiating editor, I think that we've achieved a fairly good course of action. Keep the article as a separate topic, bring over content from the Banjo article, and then expand and further cite the article where appropriate. The Brazil instrument content may stay, but only in its appropriate context. I recommend that this AfD be closed as "Keep". --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 04:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All you have to do is say the magic words "I choose to withdraw this AFD". I'm the only editor that even came close to a delete vote, and I wouldn't have any objection to that plan. I'll take care of the mechanics of closing.—Kww(talk) 05:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.