Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Folk-blues musicians

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 Delete. Most comments seem to suggest that the article should not exist in its present form. I am happy to undeleted and userfy in someone's sandbox for improvement, categorization or merger. JodyB yak, yak, yak 13:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Folk-blues musicians

List of Folk-blues musicians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Appears to violate WP:NOT#LINK (specifically item 2). I am not saying it may be considered interesting or useful, but it is not what an encyclopedia is, per policy. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC) (page created to complete AFD nomination by User:Pharmboy)[reply]

I suppose so (at least from speedy deletion), but in the state I saw them there was nothing but lists of internal links, headings and templates. An ordinary list would have some sort of lead (thus not being speediable) that would define its scope. Either way, should be deleted because it's original research to classify artists by genre unless it is established otherwise by reliable third parties. MER-C 05:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All Music Guide is reliable. Amazon.com, Barnes & Noble, Yahoo, Artist Direct, MSN...they all use their information for categorization purposes. Now that references have been added, the idea that these articles still should be deleted is extremely weak. I hope that people's concerns have been addressed, because as I said below there was no WP:OR that went into the inclusion of even one artist on any given list. They were all referenced. Furthermore, each list appears with the corresponding category I in most cases created. This serves to give broader coverage of musicians in these genres, especially those who do not yet have articles and thus cannot be categorized. What a thankless job. (Mind meal 05:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete Categorizing musicians into genres is WP:OR unless explicitly stated somewhere, and even then there'll be conflicts unless the artist themselves says it. Corpx 03:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC) I still think this should be deleted because this list is no more useful than the category Corpx 09:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree. Already 5 musicians that cannot be categorized appear there, and the same can be said of all the other lists mentioned. Each list took a lot of time and effort to compile. If we are to delete them all, at least consider respecting my contributions enough not to insert WP:POV votes about "usefulness". Please see Wp:lists#Purpose_of_lists, especially the development section. These lists are like any other, and I'm still trying to figure out why my work specifically was targeted in this case. (Mind meal 09:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep This is ridiculous. Musicians perform in genres. Looks like you lost anyway. If there is someone inappropriately listed in a genre, then say so. Otherwise, you assume both original research and inaccuracy. I challenge everyone supporting deletion to render a name that does not belong in a list. Anyone? How is placing musicians in their appropriate genres wrong? That takes the cake.(Mind meal 04:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Keep I agree. Izzy007 (talk · contribs)
Delete indiscriminant collection of info. This could be 30 megs and not cover a third of them. Use a category. This page does not qualify for speedy deletion. From WP:LISTS: "Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources, especially in difficult or contentious topics", this criteria is far to ambiguous and likely to yield contrary sources. Until(1 == 2) 04:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
References are being added as we speak. You will find no discrepency. None of this was WP:OR, for each musician was carefully referenced. If the problem was with lack of references, then the articles should have been tagged with an appropriate tag. Now that the articles are referenced, I believe there is even less ground for deletion of any sort. (Mind meal 04:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I sure hope that people won't just be stubborn here and will change votes accordingly. I know many of you thought you were correct listing these lists for speedy deletion, something adminsitrators have not agreed with you about. Surely with references you are not to be mean-spirited and still vote for deletion? That would really be an ugly thing to do after all the work i put into these. This whole group grew silent once I added references and the speedy deletion tags disappeared. So as they stand now, what are the argument for deleting them? It makes no sense now. I really don't understand the motives of some users. (Mind meal 08:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
A link to a Wikipedia article is not a reference. Until(1 == 2) 13:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename and fuse It has come to my attention that folk blues is another way of saying country blues, If you all read the articlecountry blues you will find a list of guitarists already there, if we create a list of country blues guitarist, add it to the country blues article and then redirect anyone looking for a list of folk blues guitarists to the list of country blues article (much like if you type folk blues in the search engine you'll get country blues) that way the article won't look so incomplete because they'll be more guitarists there and country and folk blues are pretty much the same thing.

If this does go ahead we can all work together so we don't merely have a list of internal links that goes against the poicy of wikipedia (and annoys everyone with slow internet who has to click on every link!) by adding a small bit of information to each guitarist. --Mikeoman 09:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Country blues is more or less guitar-driven, though there are exceptions, ie. some pianists and singers. Folk-blues has many instruments, like guitar, banjo, piano, harmonica and mandolin. (Mind meal 10:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete with reluctance. I'm not unsympathetic with the argumants in favor but there are some problems with assigning particular musicians to particular genres. Just noting the first entry on the list, John Fahey certainly played some things which might be called "folk-blues" but he also played stuff that some would class "Musique concrète" and he himself called his genre "American primitive" (reference provided upon request). People are likely to raise similar arguments about almost anyone on the list. The consequence of all this is a never ending creation of more and more genres with less and less distinction between them. better to have fewer more broadly defined catagories.Darrell Wheeler 12:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, reluctantly. Here I think Mind meal's got a good idea, but not the right way to go about it. We can't just crib from a copyrighted source and call it ours. Unfortunately, some of these lists and categories are so specific that they need backup, and so there's no other easy way to get this information out. So I say delete for now, but I'm not prejudiced against a further re-creation with a different structure.--Mike Selinker 13:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, yes, emphatically Yes, there are paths to finding various artists, e.g., allmusic.com. However, the List is valuable. The list is easier and faster to search through than other lists. Links are faster to download, than, say, www.allmusic.com. There are many genres of music, so it is not appropriate to bemoan the number of lists of types of musicians. Dogru144 15:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reasoning is not logical. The categories function as better lists because articles are added to the categories by editing the articles themselves, to add the category, which is to say that the editing occurs in one place. Hu 16:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It already is a category. Hu 16:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Whenever a category exists that is virtually identical to a list article, the list article should be deleted, as categories are much easier to maintain. Realkyhick 17:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obvious since I nominated it. It should be a category, not an article, and all the other lists that are similar should follow suit. Pharmboy 17:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Categorize as per all of the above. It would be more appropriate to split it into a category. Greg Jones II 17:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, short-term. First, this list could never be a cat. simply based on the fact that you can only categorize existing articles. A list can include items that don't (and unfortunately may never) have an article on WP. Second, any list of persons would suffer from the same downfalls that are pointed out here. I agree that there should be a brief description after each item, though. The third issue is the length of this list, which I believe is mostly attributable to its age. Unfortunately I do not know enough about this particular topic to know if it can ever be populated. So what to do; The existance of red-link or unlinked (unlinkable) items and a heading rules out both WP:NOT#LINK andWP:CSD#A3. This article (even with recent changes) could still be deleted under WP:OR. However, in a sample 500 lists of people only about 1/3 have any sources and several of those would be considered insufficient. To delete one on this bases means to delete many, many lists. I hope that everyone here would prefer simple citations as opposed to deletion. Lastly, if the article does not grow it could be deleted by WP:N. To prove this would take time. So...The article should be kept to see if it can grow and be sourced. If it does then there is no argument against it. If it does not it should be deleted using WP:OR orWP:N. (Sampm 20:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
This list is already a category. The non-existing articles argument you and the creator advance is bogus because there are other places to place such requests, such as WP:MUSICIAN. Further, if you know the person is notable enough, then just create the article yourself. Another bogus argument advanced is that there are other lists that should be deleted but aren't, so let's violate policy and keep this one too. Name the other lists and we'll nominate them for deletion too. Hu 23:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia still has hundreds of red links about non-current mainstream pop musicians with notability that they can be found in most music encyclopedias covering their type of music, and several individual musicians that I'm familiar with that have entire books published devoted to them. I am one of the many editors who has been gradually chipping away at the red links and stublets for over 5 years. Don't mistake any current deficits of coverage for inherent lack of notability. -- Infrogmation 00:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The red links argument for lists is bogus. A place like Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians is the appropriate place to request articles. Hu 00:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh should I add 600 names there now? Or should I kick myself for not having added 5,000 names there a few years ago? -- Infrogmation 00:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just took a look there for a first time in a while. and noted that there are requests for expansion as well. My numbers of things I apparently need to list there was far too modest. I think I could curtail all other activities in Wikimedia projects for a month or so to do nothing but list areas we need work on. I rather think you are vastly overestimating the completeness of Wikipedia. There are many areas of specialized knowledge-- including many significant musical generas-- where we are still in as incomplete a state as we were with, say, world leaders back in 2002. -- Infrogmation 00:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. (Not the kicking, no good kicking yourself). Now that you pointed out that Wikipedia is not complete, we are no further down the road, and the red links argument for lists is still bogus. Hu 01:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think it should be deleted, however, I am not so much for it. Categorization if it gets too detailed, can be misleading, and many of the artists aren't streotypes anyway. For me, blues is just blues, and no more detailed categorization is necessary. --Sumori 04:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your objections have been heeded, however, there has been no comment on the addition of short biographical content. It seems to me that the difference between some disputed lists and those not yet disputed is that factor. If adding such info would save this list then lets do it. If it would not then nearly all lists in this category and its subcats should be nominated. I'm not saying we should violate policy. My point is that many other lists have survived so there must be some redeeming factor or something different about this list. If there is a difference what is it? If there is not a difference then why have those lists survived? Have they just failed to be nominated? (Sampm 14:33, 23 July 2007 (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.
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Folk-blues_musicians