Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Five (orchestras)

Big Five (orchestras)

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

Lacking proper citaions, speculative

I have nominated this article for deletions for the following reasons: It is lacking inline citations; Portions of the article, notably the Modern Use section, appear to be original research; The article has been tagged with requests for citation for several months with no action taken.THD3 (talk) 12:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with THD3. In addition to his reasons, this has really become an outdated concept. MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 13:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Keep: An article which needs improvement is not a valid reason for deletion. The concept is notable and was well used. Even if outdated, it remains notable. (See, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Ivy League).--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can find multiple sources that confirm that five specific orchestras, Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, New York, and Philadelphia, are known as the "big five" orchestras. While the article needs better citations, it does provide some names of authors, publications, and years for other sources for which it seems likely that the full citations will be locatable. Even if these five orchestras can no longer be considered to be the five best or most important ones in the U.S., the term is still used in reference to those particular five, even if sometimes preceded by the words "so-called". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A long-established term that merits coverage even if it is now outdated. --Deskford (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree the term is outdated, but WP readers are likely to want to know what it means. I found this article to be helpful and informative, hardly deletion fodder. Opus33 (talk) 17:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable but now of mainly historical usage (I haven't heard this term used seriously for many years, but it appears so often in the literature that readers may want to know what it means, how it came about, and where it went -- the stuff of an encyclopedia article). Antandrus (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Deskford and Antandrus. Although I'd agree the concept is out-moded, the term is still in wide use. I've just been adding multiple inline citations to this article. It's still used in sources published in 2006 and 2008, primarily with respect to arts management and issues of gender and race in the US classical music professions, and was used by the Cleveland Plain Dealer just yesterday. Incidentally, the issues cited in the nomination are reasons to improve the article, not delete it. It is a misuse of the AfD process to "enforce" clean-up. The term is clearly notable. I've removed some of the OR phrasing and editorializing. It could use a bit more + expansion, but that's no reason to take the proverbial sledge-hammer to a nut. Voceditenore (talk) 10:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per above, articles needing work are not the same as articles needing to be deleted. And it's much improved now than it was when the discussion started. —La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 16:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable concept, outdatedness is not a reason for deletion. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per all above comments. Maashatra11 (talk) 08:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]