I have to add, that when I was looking through the Breton section of Wikipedia just yesterday, I didn't notice any "junk", just plenty of apparently well-written, relatively comprehensive, interesting and useful information, well supported by active contributors and with plenty of references (what sort of references are you referring to here anyway? Does traditional folk music require academic standards of reference?), plus of course very many links, both internal and external.

My immediate thought about this is that the Wikipedia model does not appear to be broken, so why fix it? Apparently the model can be improved, and I am sure there are some topic areas open to abuse, but is traditional folk music one of these. Is it really worth dividing what is already a coherent and comprehensive user-driven enclopedia simply because it can be 'improved'. Are peer review and real names (why???) that important that it is necessary to establish a different system?

No need to answer all that because as you say you've had the debates and while I've no time to find or study them, I'm sure anyone interested will be able to do so. No point repeating them here, but perhaps links to the 'raison d'etre' discussions could also be added to the main page?

Mally