Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of R&B musicians

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. MBisanz talk 06:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of R&B musicians

[edit]
List of R&B musicians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

One of those unsourced lists that is better served as a category, half of these artists aren't even R&B, Delete Secret account 22:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per, WP:Fancruft: "use of this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil." See also WP:Cruftcruft: "[The definition cruft] complete and utter lack of any objective criteria leaves "cruft" in the eye of the beholder. Rather than being anything meaningfully nonencyclopedic, Cruft becomes any topic, subject or article that the beholder is uninterested in." Surely you have a more civil and more objective argument against this article? Ikip (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Perhaps you need to read what I wrote again. I never used the term fancruft (I note User:EsradekanGibbs has used "fancruft" in a number of article deletions which doesn't seem to bother you when he does otherwise you would have left comments). I used Listcruft which wikipedia defines as "indiscriminate or trivial lists", which is exactly what this list is. And I note many other editors below have also used that term, so I don't buy your uncivil claim. JamesBurns (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - The Articles hold the sources. non-R&B's sould be Edited out. if this is WP:LISTCRUFT the everything in Category:Lists of musicians by genre would also be, and I dont believe that for a second. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 05:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because lists and categories are complementary and should not be deleted in favor of the other. If "half of these artists" are not R&B, that means that half of them are; the answer then is to edit, not to delete the whole thing. "Unsourced" is not a reason to delete especially when the articles for the artists themselves ought to contain references which confirm whether they are R&B musicians or not. List of electric blues musicians is a good example of what a list can become with proper care; on the other hand List of hip hop musicians is what can happen when a list is abandoned in favor of a category. Really, which of these makes Wikipedia more informative? DHowell (talk) 05:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this list is better served as a category, it's unwieldly long and poorly maintained. A-Kartoffel (talk) 10:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a case where a category is appropriate and a list is not. WP:LISTCRUFT doesn't apply to categories, which are not articles in the mainspace, but it certainly applies here. Per WP:STAND, lists like this need to abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. This list fails WP:V as sources aren't present that show that these people are indeed R&B musicians. It is also nothing but a directory listing of information as it is only a laundry list without any further discussion or information about the participants. How are they R&B musicians, where does it claim that they are? Also, per the nom, this list is pretty indiscriminate as there is no working definition of "R&B" that applies here. The category works wonderfully, the list doesn't. ThemFromSpace 18:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Whilst this category is good for tree organisation, I can see the appeal of a full list of R&B musicians. I believe it could be a useful list and is in fairly good nick. Greg Tyler (t • c) 22:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, indiscriminate laundry list that has no verifiable sources. TheClashFan (talk) 01:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pattont/c 13:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Per DHowell. If half of the list is not R&B (if this claim is correct) that is a clean up issue, not a deletion issue. I do like the nominator's suggestion of making this list a category. As is unfortunatly the norm in 99% of AFDs, I am troubled that the nominator never attempted, WP:PRESERVE or WP:BEFORE before nominating this article for deletion. I suggest that if this article is kept, the closing admin suggest that the community go back and attempts to do the work to make this article a category, instead of deleting the entire article outright, as is being attempted here. Ikip (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As with "List of country songs", it's a useless list that is no improvement over a category. While it may have served a naviagational purpose six years ago, Wikipedia has become more searchable since then. Mandsford (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:V no sources present to verify R&B musicians. Better off as a category. JoannaMinogue (talk) 01:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is exactly the purpose of lists, which are intended to co-exist with categories in synergistic fashion per WP:CLN. That sources should be added is a given, but the improvements required are rather simple. Above and beyond all reasons for retention, any AfD where any form of the word "cruft" is used as an excuse for deletion should be kept automatically. Alansohn (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not all lists should accompany all categories. Per WP:STAND, stand-alone lists have to abide by the same criteria as the rest of our articles. Having a category doesn't mean we get the go-ahead to have a list on the same subject. Categories and lists may work well together, and having one isn't a reason to delete the other, but having one isn't a reason to have the other either. Also, cruft isn't a bad word when linked to an essay that explains exactly what it means in the terms that its used. If you'd look over WP:LISTCRUFT you'll find that it makes a lot of good points and isn't just a blanket "idontlikeit". ThemFromSpace 17:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete cat is better; this is unmaintainable and inaccurate. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Normally we have a list for every category of this sort. We do not need to choose which is better. If there is justification for putting a name in a category, it also justifies it for the list. Individual cases are discussed on individual talk pages. DGG (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an indiscriminate unmaintainable list. You don't need and can't have an all inclusive list for every grouping of people of this type. Lists of musicians by genre are impossible to properly maintain as their content group is essentially unlimmited. Spiesr (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete indiscriminate unmaintainable list. Iam (talk) 00:51, 18 April 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_R%26B_musicians&oldid=1137998761"