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 no consensus (non-admin close). Cerejota 06:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Electric blues musicians[edit]

This list should be deleted according to WP:CSD#A3 since it is just a list of links and the Category:Electric blues musicians is much better for the purpose. It also violates WP:NOT#LINK (specifically item 2). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Folk-blues musicians for a similar debate. 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. Hu 22:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following lists have also been nominated for deletion for the same reasons stated above (Categories better, CSD#A3, and WP:NOT#LINK):

Delete (but not speedy). There are articles linked in the lists that are not in the relevant categories. Would be best to see if we could get a bot to transfer the information as appropriate. JulesH 22:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: These lists are mostly already categories. Some users advance a bogus argument that these lists are a good place to stash red links for articles to be created, but the appropriate place for such red links is WP:MUSICIAN and similar projects, as well as the Wikipedia articles request page. Hu 23:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete carefully After being certain to move information into categories where not synchronized. If any of these have encyclopedic content beyond being a flat list then they can be considered on their own merits. Until (1 == 2) 23:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Such lists still have value in addition to categories, especially in the red links showing where Wikipedia still has many very serious gaps. -- Infrogmation 00:08, 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 00:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree strongly with your first assertion. As to your second, if you wish to start cross referencing various music encyclopedias I'm sure you can find thousands of needed items to add to that project. Some of us take other approaches. Hundreds of the articles I've created were specifically selected over other topics I could have equally well spent the time on because of the red links. -- Infrogmation 00:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A category is not the same thing as an article. A list with no information than other links is a category, or should be. Pharmboy 00:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First of all, not speedy CSD A3 was not intended to eliminate all lists-and by the argument given it it would do so. There is no WP policy against lists. For that matter, there is also no policy against lists that contain items that do not have an article. Most of these lists do have items listed that do not presently have a WP article Therefore they cannot be replaced by a category, so that argument fails altogether also. Lists are much more flexible than categories, and permit the inclusion of information other than simply the names. In a sense, categories are the most trivial sort of list--they are just away of grouping WP articles. DGG (talk) 01:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No straw man arguments, please. Nobody is arguing that CSD A3 is intended to eliminate all lists. CSD A3 applies to lists that are just lists of links, like these lists, even if the creator goes around tarting them up with a couple of birthdates. The text of CSD A3 is quite clear that wiki links are implicitly included in the deletion criteria, because it explicitly includes hyperlinks in addition to the implicit wiki links. (And no overly bolding text please: I eliminated it assuming it was a typo.) Regardless, here we are in AfD, and these lists need to be deleted because they are just lists of links, forbidden by WP:NOT#LINK. The red links argument that you make fails because there are more appropriate places for requesting articles, namely Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians. If your red links argument had any merit then any bogus list could be forced to be kept by adding one red link to it. Hu 01:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a basic stub cannot be made about the artist, then why should they be in a list? Where is their encyclopedic merit shown? If a stub can be made, put it in the category and viola it is indexed on a nice automatically made list called a category. Until (1 == 2) 01:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These lists are there to further compliment the categories, appearing in each corresponding category. They are referenced, though admittedly they need some additional work. But many of these lists contain musicians that simpply are not on Wikipedia at this time. The red links are referenced, and each artist included can be found at All Music Guide with a list of albums they have released or performed on. Their notability actually has been established, despite the lack of a stub article for them. Since each list has been referenced, merit has been shown. As for the red link argument being bogus, just give me a chance to provide simple birth/death dates for each and a brief summary of who they are. Deletion seems extreme, considering these are all referenced unlike the majority of lists out there. (Mind meal 03:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I already told you, directory sites are not reliable sources. Until (1 == 2) 04:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You telling me something and that something being so are two different things. If you are saying All Music Guide is not a reliable reference, then you need to bring that up at WP:Musicians and WP:Albums, for both state that as a good source for information. Aside from saying it is not reliable, you have done nothing to demonstrate how that is so. (Mind meal 05:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Delete, as in the other nomination.Why are we having this discussion in two places?--Mike Selinker 04:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to nominate the 30 other lists that need to be deleted, so I did so. I didn't want to dump them on somebody else's nomination and hijack it. Hu 06:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and merge discussions - Let's first get done with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Folk-blues musicians, and then see if there's anything more to say about this list. I think we should keep it for the same reasons I gave there. Lior 04:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see how the page appears as of now, and see if you still feel it is not up to par. I believe with the current work being done on this article - which will be done for all the other articles, makes it clear these lists shall remain. That is unless certain members have a vendetta. (Mind meal 04:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Claiming or assuming or accusing or supposing or imagining members of making a vendetta doesn't exactly advance your case. Hu 06:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All and replace with a category. I think a category is perfect for something like this (Assuming that inclusion in the genre is noted by reliable sources) Corpx 05:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but has anyone voting delete even looked at the current article? It is in accord with how lists should me created as far as I can see. It is referenced. It has short blurbs about the artists. What in God's name do you WANT? (Mind meal 05:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

There are 31 lists that are nominated for deletion and they are just collections of links. I doubt you've improved all 31. Even assuming that one passes muster, why didn't you make a proper article in the first place instead of first going around dropping requests on talk pages gathering allies and calling this a "Dangerous Discussion", etc., as you did. Surely that energy would be better spent on making the articles proper articles in the first place and not forcing Wikipedia to go through this whole process. What we want is proper articles, not accusation of vendettas and "foul smells", as you wrote on another page. Hu 06:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just calm down a little bit and give me a chance to improve all the articles? You make it sound as if the improvments to this list are bothersome to you, like they hit at your pride. The answer to your question shoud be obvious: I was unaware that I was doing something wrong Hu. I have seen so many lists that look like the ones you nominated that it was how I thought things were to be done. I'm not someone who puts a ton of time into the politics of this place, I just want to help inform people. Obviously I needed some allies, as I was getting swiftboated by enemies. Even assuming "1" passes muster is a bad attitude in my view, as you seem unwilling to give me some time to work on them. If I can make every one of these lists look like List of Electric blues musicians does right now, why would you hold that against me? I can say whatever I like here, as you are tossing out "bogus this" and "bogus that" at people. Nobody "forced" Wikipedia to go through anything. If anything you did. I find the lists useful, and put a lot of time into them. If I want to bring them up to par, I hope you won't stand in my way Hu. I don't want to see my work destroyed just to make some point. You can either work with me on this or against me. But if this particular list is deleted in it's current state, I'll know none of this has been done in good faith. (Mind meal 06:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

PS: "What we want is proper articles, not accusation of vendettas and "foul smells", as you wrote on another page." You sure don't sound as if you want that. If you did then you'd realize I'm trying my best to improve them, instead of getting all nasty with people. You had a captive audience before I leveled the playing field on this debate. I didn't influence anyone on how they may vote, I just showed them that a discussion was underway and invited them to join in. Maybe you don't like democracy, and prefer dictatorship? I can't read your mind, only your posts. And you seem quite determined to make a point here, as opposed to working toward the end you say you want: proper articles. There are so many other avenues you could have taken to achieve better articles, like contacting me and making suggestions. Deletion is quite an extreme measure, and you should know full-well that it gets people angry. I kind of respect people that patrol pages like you, but also I find such work to be provacative and rather pompous at times. I don't spend my time undemrining the efforts of others, I spend my time here adding content. (Mind meal 07:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The lists do not meet Wikipedia requirements, so they got tagged for speedy deletion. Rather than improve them, you waged politics to get the SD tags removed, which they were, fair enough, so we had to take the lists to AfD. This is not a democracy and this is not a vote. You can resort to a lot of ad hominem attacks against me, but they aren't Wikipedia:Civility. The amount of work you put into something is not determinative. You are not being swiftboated and it is not about you, it's about the lists. You completely misunderstand the process. Hu 10:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just sampled several more lists in Category:Lists of musicians by genre and found List of Electric blues musicians to surpass them in quality, thanks to the hard work of Mind meal. Thus I think you should take back your words about "Rather than improve them", as he has clearly improved this list on a most impressive pace. An AfD is no way to urge him to fix 31 lists in a few days. Please point out the fundamental differences between the 31 lists you've nominated and those in Category:Lists of musicians by genre. That might make our discussion less heated and more constructive. Lior 13:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This seems fine now. It doesn't seem to be OR, and it doesn't seem to be just a crib from the All Music Guide. I'm in favor of more like this. Move all others to sandboxes until they are in this state. (As a side note, I don't buy the list on Dirty blues or Juke joint blues, because there are no articles for these music types and since most of the bios hem and haw about whether their artists belong in the genre. That should be cleaned up first, so that each list supports an article. I'm in favor of the Electric and Texas lists, though.)--Mike Selinker 15:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Mind meal asserts, the list is referenced and contains short blurbs about the artists. Seems to be improving as well.--JayJasper 20:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom, the cats are more then enough.--JForget 22:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since this particular list clearly is no longer subject to WP:CSD#A3, are you going to withdraw your nomination of it? On what grounds and merit do List of Electric blues musicians, List of Juke Joint blues musicians, List of Dirty blues musicians and List of Texas blues musicians remain here for deletion? A rationale should be provided, since they no longer fit into your opening arguments. This is getting real petty. As a general rule, it makes little sense to simultaneously have a list and a category perhaps. But since many of these musicians now have short blurbs accompanying their red links, we are in a unique situation where information will be lost and categorization cannot suffice. This will occur with each list as time permits me, so eventually none will or should be deleted unless someone is just out to WP:Point#Refusal to 'get the point'. (Mind meal 07:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

It is not a speedy delete issue, it is partially a WP:NOT issue, and partially an editorial decision regarding the usefulness of the article in the presence of identical categories. Until (1 == 2) 14:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and regarding the "red links" that would be lost if this was deleted, from Wikipedia:Notability (people): "Several articles contain lists of people - for instance, an article on a college usually includes a list of alumni. Such lists are never intended to contain everyone (e.g. not all people who ever graduated from the school). Instead, the list should be limited to notable people: those that already have a Wikipedia article or could plausibly have one, per this guideline."(emphasis added)

In other words, if an artist does not justify an article they should not be in the list anyways, so nothing is lost by switching to a cat. Until (1 == 2) 15:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This whole debate has become so dishonest. You said before that "If any of these have encyclopedic content beyond being a flat list then they can be considered on their own merits." Does that mean what it says or not? I don't understand what else is needed for List of Electric blues musicians, List of Juke Joint blues musicians, List of Dirty blues musicians and List of Texas blues musicians. Could you give me some pointers on that? Because I'm at a real loss anymore. This is really beginning to feel personal now, as everything that a list could be those are. What else do you want? I'm beginning to think you aren't even looking at the articles, because notability is so clearly demonstrated that your comparison to college alumni is really nothing short of puzzling. (Mind meal 15:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Well the first indication is that Juke Joint blues is a red link. There should be an article on the subject, and the artists can go there, once the list is too big for the article that would be a good time to make a list. May I ask how exactly you are defining "Juke Joint blues"? What unambiguous criteria based off of reliable sources are you using to determine the inclusion in this list? It is a mistake to take this personally, it is about editorial decision making, not anyone's opinion about you. Until (1 == 2) 15:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you addressed only one article. The others? List of Juke Joint blues musicians already states what juke joint blues is, and the entire article is referenced. If you could just look at the reference section you would know the source of that information. These lists go above and beyond the normal lists on Wikipedia, and I find this level of scrutiny rather disturbing, thus the personal aspect of all of this. I'm still unclear on what these articles lack under current guidelines? Are you contesting the defintion, or just trying to be combative? The whole damned article states its reference. (Mind meal 15:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Your "reference" is a link to a Wikipedia article about a directory listing site. I suggest you take a look at WP:RS to see what we consider a reliable source. And that source in no way determines that the artists meet our notability requirements either. This is not about being combative, I am questioning your definition because musical genres are hard to define, and as it is, it seems like WP:OR. Until (1 == 2) 16:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My blood pressure can't take this. "Juke Joint Blues refers to the hard-driving variation of Southern R&B and electric blues where the rhythm is dominant. It's hard-rocking blues, intended for dancing, and it is usually frenzied uptempo blues or greasy slow blues. Generally, the term refers to R&B and blues singles made in the '50s and early '60s." [1] I have never seen so much scrutiny for something so straightforward in my life. Shit like this makes people want to leave this place. (Mind meal 16:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I am trying to explain to you that "allmusic" is not a reliable source. It is a directory site. Who wrote that? It does not say. It is just a commercial directory site that gathers info from numerous sources and does not say where it got it from. WP:RS explains what we consider a reliable source. If you are having problems with your blood pressure I suggest you take a short break, don't take it so seriously this is just an academic debate. Until (1 == 2) 16:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that it is not a reliable source per policy? Please see WP:Albums#Review_sites, WP:JAZZ#Possible_sources_for_authors.2Feditors, WP:ROCK#References. (Mind meal 16:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

It is not a reliable source because they are just republishing information they gathered elsewhere and do no explain where they got it. This is the same reason IMDB is not a reliable source. But lets just say for the sake of argument that it was a reliable source that demonstrated the music is indeed "Foo folk". Where is the notability of the artists demonstrated? Until (1 == 2) 16:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesnt WP:ALBUMS#Review_Sites say AllMusicGuide is not professional and should not be used? Its not policy, but I'd say that's the consensus. Corpx 16:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It says no such thing Corpx. All Music Guide publishes yearly print reference guides. As for "Where is the notability of the artists demonstrated?" ~~Jesus you are thick. Read the fucking lists already.~~ You were right, I do need a break. A really long one.(Mind meal 16:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Keep for now and see if they improve. They can always be deleted later if necessary. There is also nothing wrong with red links and since when is allmusic not considered a reliable source? Garion96 (talk) 18:11, 24 July 2007
Delete per nom 10000% Bulldog123 19:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A number of false statements, claims and assertions have been made so far that have not been backed up by the authors of them.

1. All Music Guide is not a reliable source of information.

To demonstrate this, you need to show us where that is said in policy or guidelines governing sources. Otherwise, such claims smell of personal bias, not actual discrepencies. You need to bring All Music Guide's supposed unreliablity up somewhere other than here, because I've already demonstrated how several projects direct users there for sources. This again reeks of personal bias, asserting "truisms" that simply are not based on policy.

2. Notability has not been established for individuals or groups without articles.

This (surprise!) is untrue for List of Electric blues musicians, List of Juke Joint blues musicians, List of Dirty blues musicians and List of Texas blues musicians. They are referenced and assert notability for each individual, including record labels, numbers of albums and sometimes who they played with.

3.This list should be deleted according to WP:CSD#A3 since it is just a list of links and the Category:Electric blues musicians is much better for the purpose. It also violates WP:NOT#LINK (specifically item 2).

Put simply, this is a false assertion that does not take into account the progress of List of Electric blues musicians, List of Juke Joint blues musicians, List of Dirty blues musicians and List of Texas blues musicians. WP:CSD#A3? Not for these. WP:NOT#LINK (specifically item 2)? Again, not for these. Also the category superiority to the list is not backed by any guidelines. Please see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes where it states"Wikipedia offers three ways to create groupings of articles: categories, lists, and article series boxes. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages, and each is appropriate in different circumstances. These methods should not be considered to be in competition with each other. Rather, they are most effective when used in synergy, each one complementing the other.

4. If any of these have encyclopedic content beyond being a flat list then they can be considered on their own merits.

Given the absolute ridicule of the improvements since that statement and the refusal to recognize them, I believe this statement was made without any conviction or sincerity. It just sounded nice. Hokum.

5. Wikilinks cannot be used as a reference, ie. All Music Guide in a reference section when All Music Guide is a source.

I presume that this argument presented by User:Until(1 == 2) is the result of their non-binding, non-policy, non-guideline essay titled User:Until(1 == 2)/Wikilinks are not references. This can only be asserted as something others must adhere to once proper consensus is formed on whether or not you are even correct.

(Mind meal 02:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Keep and keep working on them. Sampling half a dozen of the nominated lists at random, yes, some of them are just simple lists of links which could be better served by categories, but some have already been improved to add descriptive paragraphs to the listed musicians, including useful details such as what other genres they were active in. I suggest taking a deep breath and letting Mind Meal get on with improving the others. --Stormie 03:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and keep working on them. Totally agree with Infrogmation, Stormie and others. Some of the lists may prove to be redundant but at present they are useful to me and others in identifying the need for articles and further work, and in classification. Ghmyrtle 08:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, lists and categories are complementary, rather than overlapping and redundant. Lists are simply another way of organizing articles, that allow more flexibility and nuance than categories in their layout/sorting/inclusion criteria. If these lists are not perfect, fix them. If they are incomplete, add information. If they are not sourced, source them (remind you that categories NEVER include any sourcing). No convincing reason for deletion here. See also Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List of Electric blues musicians, which has been fully annotated and expanded and is far more than a list of links and anything that a category can do. Keep all if Mind meal intends to flesh them all out in this manner. Any which might remain as simple lists of links should then be merged to List of blues musicians or Lists of blues musicians by genre (which should be renamed to List of blues musicians by genre if list content is merged there). As for reliable sources, note that All Music Guide is not just a website: it has a published book on the subject as well. In addition, Encyclopedia of the Blues and The Cambridge Companian to Blues and Gospel Music also exist as reliable sources which can be used to further expand and verify these lists. DHowell 04:36, 26 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.