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. Cbrown1023 23:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of J-pop artists[edit]

List of J-pop artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Also, all related articles here

There is no reason why this article cannot be covered by a Category:J-pop artists. Delete as unmanageable listcruft and being completely redundant. Additional reasoning: at least 60% of the mentioned people are not notable enough to have their own article and there is no use in having their names on Wikipedia. Axem Titanium 01:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows. Suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)), suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)), accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username))

• Keep, I think there is precedent that we can have both. Lists can do things that categories can't--such as have both romanji and kanji/kana. It's easier and nicer to browse than a category in many ways. gren グレン 01:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How so? I find it difficult to search through so many different individual articles when I could just have all the notable musicians in one category. Axem Titanium 01:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In categories you may have to go "next 200" several times before finding what you want. On a list you just have to scroll down. Also lists allow for annotation and red-links. The red-links on the list could include significant J-Pop artists. Japanese people are, surprisingly, underrepresented at Wikipedia when you consider that Japan is a large and modern nation.--T. Anthony 02:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I wasn't going to use T. Anthony's argument... but... In a category you will see a link to Hitomi Yaida. On a list page you can see "Hitomi Yaida (矢井田瞳)" You may not think that's a big deal... but, it can be useful I believe. Lists are more versatile and I just don't see a reason to delete it. gren グレン 13:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find that being split up into 26 articles is less convenient than pressing a button a few times. I also don't see how catering to lazy users is a reason for keeping such articles. Also, if an artist is notable enough, an article will be created for him/her/them. If not, then including a red link does nothing but spam up Wikipedia when some random obsessed fan decides to clog up the AfD process by writing an article about a non-notable musician. Axem Titanium 02:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Red-links can help when you're interested in improving coverage of a style of music even if you don't know every individual in it. For example I found List of jazz pianists and List of Brazilian musicians useful in starting articles. I saw a name I wasn't familiar with and then checked if it was notable at music sites I know. Then on creating it the article is now available for those who know more. That's how the article on George Cables got started.--T. Anthony 03:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll concede that, but the article gives this website as the source for most of the names. If nothing else, that link can be saved while the rest can be deleted and each musician judged on a case-by-case basis. Axem Titanium 03:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As there is no kanji/kana names in the list right now, we have no way to argue for or against such an addition because we don't know what it will look like. Also, the threshold of "J-POP" is not defined well in the list. Remember, J-POP covers rock, soul, R&B, and other genres, so it's a very wide category. ColourBurst 03:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is valid, the topic may be too broad for a list.--T. Anthony 03:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - indiscriminate listcruft, no threshhold for inclusion. MER-C 02:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete List also seems like it could end up being very very long; Japan is a populous country, I'm sure there have been a LOT of bands and singers there over the years that could be called "j-pop". --Brianyoumans 03:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article - appears to be just a list? Bec-Thorn-Berry 04:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Ugxq 08:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Valrith 11:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomm. Saganaki- 12:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Indiscriminate list that's better served by a category. The kana argument is invalid. There are two or three entries on the list which use kana. It's not a big loss. The red link argument is invalid as these titles can be added to the Japan requested articles red link farm where they can be properly fed and looked after: Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Japan. --Kunzite 13:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not invalid... just hasn't been done yet. There is a big difference. Someday this will be the best of featured lists... no doubt... gren グレン 14:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I think both gren's kana/kanji argument and the red link argument are valid. It does serve good as a good starting point when I find wikipedia has zero information on a particular artist. Also converting this to a category is uncessary since it is largely covered by Category:Japanese musicians and Category:Japanese musical groups. This list should be preserved for the unique value it presents not available in these categories. -rydia 14:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, guess what? This is EN Wikipedia, not a place to cater to Japanophile interests. Most people will not know the Japanese kana or kanji. Per User:Kunzite, Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan is a much better place to store red links and since this list has zero information on any artist besides the name, this article is a terrible place to start research on them. A sub-category for J-pop musicians is entirely feasible too. In conclusion, this list does nothing unique. Axem Titanium 22:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I always use this list over the wiki generated category list because the wiki category generated list sucks. Delete that one how am I suppose to know what Jap related artists I need to be working on if there isn't a list like this to fucking tell me. Let's get back to writing articles instead of nit picking the hell out of wikipedia. ColenFace 18:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Way to be civil. As User:Kunzite said, Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan is a much better place for red links like this. Axem Titanium 22:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, better served by a category, IMO. My reasons aren't much different from those discussed above. Recury 18:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Don't delete this way better than category.WaynGravy 19:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)— WaynGravy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • No reasoning behind this? I guess not. Axem Titanium 22:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep How can they be deleting list. Please DONT DELETE LIST.Azininvasive 19:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)— Azininvasive (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Same here, huh? Axem Titanium 22:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I personally like using this list I find it much easier to use than the categorical method. I don't see why we can't just keep both and let the user decide which they would rather use. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CanadianJohn1972 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC).— CanadianJohn1972 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • HAY LOOK! Another single purpose account! Anyway, is there any reason you'd like to impart upon us as to why it's easier besides, of course, that "it just is"? Having both is completely redundant. Axem Titanium 22:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the list can hold red links to be filled later, while a category cannot. — coelacan talk — 21:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finally! Not a single purpose account! Anyway, as User:Kunzite said, Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan is a much better place for red links than this page. Axem Titanium 22:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not a bad point, however, in a list like this the red links already have information by way of being in the list. It invites any J-Pop fan to go ahead and fill them in. Over at the requested articles thing, you've got some nipponophiles who might do it, but this draws a more specific crowd. — coelacan talk — 02:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Is that a bad thing? Notability is difficult to judge when one is a rabid otaku-fan so perhaps it would be better to let the so-called experts at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan (who may or may not be Japanophiles) to start stubs on notable people instead of letting over-zealous fans do the work and end up having their favorite artist on AfD. Anonymous editors are also not allowed to start articles anymore, just FYI. Axem Titanium 03:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agreed. Bilaber 21:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)— Bilaber (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Oh darn. I guess I got my hopes up that someone could come up with a reasonable argument for inclusion. Axem Titanium 22:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree with everything that Coelacan said. --Stzr3 23:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to refer again to User:Kunzite's argument that Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan is a much better place to have red links than this page. Axem Titanium 23:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A category would work just fine here. There are almost no annotations, and redirects can be used to cover alternate spellings in the few cases where there are. Redundant categories (like having the same person in Category:Japanese musicians and the new category) can be avoided by making the new category a sub-category of the pre-existing ones (sort of like how Category:Wives of Brigham Young is a sub-category of Category:Polygamists. Don't ask, it was just the first example that popped into my head...) and putting the people in the sub-category. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 21:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: 74.101.255.108 (talk) was just previously solicited many votes with the text "Save the List! They are trying to delete the lists we've work so hard on help put a stop to it. List of J-pop Artists Vote to keep our precious list!!!" Furthermore, they are impersonating Bilaber (talk • contribs). Please take this into consideration when closing the discussion. --Iamunknown 22:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Red links to nonexisting articles are useful. Seeing the performer's name in romaji and kanji together is useful. Neier 23:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the 26 sub lists though. Neier 23:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'm going to refer again to User:Kunzite's argument that Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan is a much better place to have red links than this page. Also, you are assuming that the majority of users will be able to derive some use out of seeing the kanji. This argument happens to be faulty as well, since, let's take Megumi Hayashibara as an example. When listing her name for the category, one can simply type "[[Category:J-pop artists|Hayashibara, Megumi (林原 めぐみ)]]" in order to add her kana/kanji to what shows up in the category. Axem Titanium 23:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • • Comment: The title of the article is what appears in the listing, regardless of what you type in the catsort section of the category on the article page. The text entered in the catsort section is used only for sorting within the category, and nothing else. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • First of all, I like how the reasoning has changed since the AFD was opened. "not notable enough to have their own article" has morphed to "well, list them someplace else". So, are all red links in articles a bad idea? Red links should just be added to a project which may or may not be accessed by the users who read the article (list) and would otherwise have an incentive to create new information for Wikipedia? And the premise that there is no room for both categories and lists for a topic has been debated many times in the past, and judging from the 110 lists in Category:Lists of musicians by genre alone, I would have to assume that there must be a good reason to keep both the lists and categories. Adding kanji to the name in the categorization is an interesting idea (a rarity for AFD lately, it seems), and I think I'll bring that up at WP:MOS-JA where Japanese naming conventions are discussed. It still wouldn't change the fact that the list is useful. The 26 sub-lists are less useful, and I agree that they can be deleted, because they duplicate info on the main list. Neier 23:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added that addendum because User:T. Anthony explained that some notable artists may not have articles simply because of Wikipedia's systemic bias against non-English speaking subjects. The notability of a person is independent of the state of having an article and I changed my argument to say that this list is not the proper place where articles should be requested and that Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan is the proper place to do that. Axem Titanium 01:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. However there are reasons some of us prefer working on lists rather than requested articles. I worked on Wikipedia:Requested_articles/music#Jazz for a time, but then went back to working on lists. Why? Because frankly lists are usually better done. Requested articles is often just a dumping ground that mixes notable people with some local musician someone like. Lists actually tend to have more legitimately notable people because lists are

      1-Easier to access for most people, particularly those interested in a topic.

      2-Often made by people interested in the subject.

    • That said I'm not happy with some lobbying I've seen on this.--T. Anthony 06:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Lists can be more informative than categories, by adding more information than a simple article title, and by arranging the subjects in a more informative way than a category can. However, beyond the red links, this list does not yet take advantage of the advantages a list can have over a category. Keep, but make the list more useful. Dekkappai 23:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories can have organization too. It's not too difficult to simply have sub-cats for a Category:J-pop artists which would include things like Category:J-rock artists, or the like. In that way, the categories could organize the articles in the same way you mentioned, if not better. For example, if someone wanted to find other visual kei artists, they could simply click on the sub-cat "Visual kei artists" and be linked to all the other artists in that group. However, unless you want to spam the link to this article on every single J-pop artist's page, it would be difficult to locate this page in the first place and even then, it would be difficult to find the artist you're looking for. If there's something else you'd like to add, please do. Axem Titanium 01:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, with stipulations (Edit conflict) This list has the potential to be useful, but needs some serious work first. First and foremost, the list needs to be renamed, to something along the lines of Japanese musical artists. It includes not only J-pop artists, but it also claims to include J-Rock, Visual Kei, and Japanese hip hop artists as well. Second, loose the sublists. All the information contained in them can be found in the main article, really the only reason for a sublist in this case would be if the page over the size limit, which it is not. If there are any sublists to be in there, I would say that this should be made into a hierachical list, because the list says it includes 4 distinct genres. Third, the article needs to have some serious clean-up work done. Mainly, it directly conflicts with WP:MOS-JA, specifically the section on modern names by going in Japanese, rather than Western order. If people have a problem with all the red links, there probably wouldn't be any problem with them being summarily moved over to Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan; somebody wanted them, might as well see if someone can make a decent article on them. I personally don't have a problem with them, though, List of violinists has plenty of red links, and its more well-done than this list. Finally the list should definantly note that it is incomplete; I'm sure that some of the Japanese musical artists we have on Wikipedia who fall into the genres covered by this list. --Limetom 02:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You go on about how it is too broad and doesn't follow certain style guidelines but do you have any specific reasons as to why a category would not be suitable for the same purpose? Axem Titanium 02:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I never said that it was too broad, just improperly titled. I find that lists are generally tend to be, when well-maintained, much more user-friendly, which is the basis of why I feel it should be kept. It needs clean-up, but lists have value in that it make it more accessable for the average user. If you take note, most musical genres have both lists of aritsts within them and categories relating to them; this seems to be standard in almost every single case. To give a very abbreviated list, see List of metalcore bands and Category:Metalcore musical groups, List of death metal bands and Category:Death metal musical groups, List of jazz musicians and Category:Lists of jazz musicians, etc. There doesn't seem to be any reason why there cannot both be a list and a category. Each serve their own purpose, and there really isn't any reason why you can't have both. --Limetom 03:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • For the sake of argument, is there anything those lists provides that the categories don't? Personally, I find it easier to navigate between articles within a category. For example, let's say that hypothetically, I wanted to from Most Precious Blood to Death by Stereo. With a category, I could simply click on the category link at the bottom to see a list of articles within the category. For the list option, I would fist have to know that a list exists (which most people who randomly browse Wikipedia don't), then find it, then find the person I was looking for, if I didn't already know the name. That seems like a much more involved and unintuitive process compared to just having a category. The point is that we don't have two articles on Isaac Newton so we shouldn't have two articles documenting the same thing (in this case, J-pop artists), especially since one of them seems to do it better. Axem Titanium 03:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Umm no. When I first started here lists were easier for me. I'd heard of listing things well before I came here and Encyclopedias themselves have index. In addition to that type Jazz pianists and you get redirected to List of jazz pianists. Or if you prefer type in "heavy metal bands" and you will get redirected to List of heavy metal bands. Now if I'm thinking "who is that jazz pianist whose obituary I saw in 2001?", how is a category going to help me? I mean assuming I don't want to go through the entire category to find out when each one died.--T. Anthony 14:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think all those lists fail to grasp what it means to actually be a list, by Wikipedia's standards. Now, let's take a look at a list that isn't redundant with its category: List of HIV-positive people. While Category:HIV-positive people exists and is useful, this list goes beyond simply listing the name for the sake of having that person's name there. It provides a substantial amount of useful information that can't be achieved with a category and is also well-referenced. In its current state, this and all the other list articles that have been mentioned fail to justify their existence by including such information that a list would be required at all. Axem Titanium 20:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's not about how long it is, it's about the J-Pop artists! I'm sorry if i sound stupid, but I believe we need to keep this list, because i've used it before, and it is very helpful, sometimes I try to find new and exciting bands using this very list. What would be the main point of destoying it? Would it be to long? There are plenty of other categories where the list is far more longer than this mere list, eg. The List of famous left-handed people is one such example.Blkeddie! 02:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you saying that if this article does not exist that they will be any less than J-pop artists? Do you have any specific reasons why a list is preferable to a category? The presence of another list does not justify this one's. It simply means that someone with a critical eye has not yet questioned its value. I can say right now that I can see myself nominating that article for deletion in preference to a category as well. Axem Titanium 02:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment For whatever its worth, after far too much work I took the red links out of the article, and made it conform to WP:MOS-JA naming conventions. --Limetom 07:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd say keep There's a lot of good that can be derived from an exhaustive list of J-Pop artists. I think it can really help promote modern popular Japanese music and give people a better look at all the various artists. So that people know there's more to the modern music than Gackt and Malice Mizer. Maikeru Go 12:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remember, Wikipedia is not an advertisement. We are not here to "promote" anything, only document existing notable things. This "keep" is based entirely on false premises. Axem Titanium 20:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A lot of Japanese artists may not be notable enough to have their own articles, but they’re worth being mentioned anyway, in case someone wants to do research about them or look up a name. Categories only list artists that have their own articles – that is, only the “notable” ones – while omitting a lot of names. ～Michelle 16:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would disagree. If they're not notable enough for their own article, why should their name be mentioned at all in a professional encyclopedia? There are enough fansites that can do that. Also, what kind of research would you be able to do here if all that's mentioned is a name? If we were to go by your criteria, then the list would be nearly endless since there are literally thousands of non-notable J-pop artists. Axem Titanium 20:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete as completely unmanageable. There are literally tens of thousands of J-pop artists, and more are coming out daily. A category is much better suited for keeping track of them. For any that need articles, they can be listed (along with the kanji/kana for their names and any supporting links) on the Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan pages. Also, J-rock is not a sub-genre of J-pop. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, if this page had anything more to it than just names I'd be in favor of keeping it, but without any context for the names it really isn't very useful. YankeeDoodle14 01:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• split and cleanup. Monni 21:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uhhhh... what? I'm not sure how that could be done. Please explain. Axem Titanium 02:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Lists serve purposes that categories don't. Most importantly, they can be checked and monitored for thoroughness, which is critical to Wikipedia's mission of building a truly comprehensive encyclopedia. Splitting might be a good idea, but I'm really not sure how this list would be split. -- Visviva 04:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you're misunderstanding the purpose of lists by Wikipedia's standards. Lists should provide a substantial amount of relevant information about each entry on it in order to separate it from its related category. List of HIV-positive people is a good example of a list of people which provides enough relevant information about each person to warrant separation from its parent category: Category:HIV-positive people. Axem Titanium 02:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then how about instead of senselessly arguing for 4 more days about how little relevant information is contained in this list you go through ever artist and put in a table a brief summary on each artist. You know just because it isn't relevant to you doesn't mean it's not relevant to the other whatever million people that use this encyclopedia.ColenFace 08:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I don't think I'm misunderstanding anything. See Wikipedia:Lists#Purpose of lists, particularly item 3: "Development." I'm not saying this list couldn't be done better, but it is already a useful resource for development, and could readily be made even more valuable in that regard (for example, by adding entries from other (reliable) online J-pop lists). -- Visviva 10:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is roughly the point I tried to make above. A list doesn't magically begin in the best format. It has been established that lists can be done well, and just because this list is not done well, it is not suitable grounds for deletion either. Grounds for improvement, yes. I'd prefer to encourage the development of the article, not removing it because it is not up to the standards of some other lists. Neier 09:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems to me that the pro-deletion and pro-keeping people are basically making the same argument: This list is not worth keeping as it stands now. The "keepers" say, let's keep it and improve it. The "deleters" say, it's not useful now, so let's delete it. I won't be working on the list, but my vote remains "keep," and those editors who are interested in the list should work on it. Dekkappai 17:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think that's a good summary of the arguments. The list in unmanageable in scope. There are lots of J-pop artists and even if the article were cleaned up or expanded beyond a mere list of artists, it would be unmanageable, out of date, or a red link farm inviting people to submit articles for artists who really aren't notable. There are a lot of "I like it" style arguments here with people expressing a desire to keep because they find it easier to edit or keep track of a list. Those are not reasons to keep as you can easily do the same thing with a category. --Kunzite 03:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I had to hazard a guess, I think that the number of J-Pop artists is significantly LOWER than the number of HIV infected people. I don't like making that comparison, but, since that list has been pointed to above, seems to be a good example of a list, and also seems to be managed well, claiming that the J-Pop list is unmanageable is a flawed argument. Neier 11:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed. This whole situation is totally counter productive we're all volunteering our time to build wikipedia, a large number of hours have already been put into this page. An example of a well compiled list was given and can be replicated with the J-pop artists but for some reason the push to delete this list continues. It's easy to argue to delete a list you yourself have put 0 hours of work into but it's extremely difficult for those of us who have dedicated solid hours into building this page to see it all go completely to waste for what appears to be totally selfish reasons. This list holds extreme potential and that potential will be displayed as soon as this hostage crisis is resolved.ColenFace 05:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You can't do the same thing with a category. The reason for this is simple: a category is not a list; aside from the intro text and cat tags, a category is simply the result of a live database query. Thus, a category cannot be reliable monitored, because it is impossible to track when articles have been removed from a category, and for what reasons. See also Wikipedia:Lists#Purpose of lists. -- Visviva 10:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, I think this list is worth keeping as it stands now. It could be done better, but that applies to everything on WP. -- Visviva 10:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for pointing this out. And all this time, I've been trying to convince them as to why this article is redundant when their reason for keeping doesn't even hold a candle up to the official deletion policy. Axem Titanium 04:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP the list. Also, what is wrong with people creating articles for artists that "aren't notable"? Who decides who is notable and who isn't? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tuxedo Mark (talk • contribs) 04:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Ummm... I think we do. Seriously, we have stuff like WP:MUSIC to prevent a bazillion articles about random nobodies from being created. There are 5 billion people on this planet. Not every one of them deserves an article. If you want to have an article about you on Wikipedia, go do something special and earn it. Axem Titanium 04:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • They're called notability guidelines. This isn't a vote, BTW. Saying "Keep" or "Delete" without providing some rationale to back it up. "Votes" without rationales may be discounted at the discretion of the closing admin. --Kunzite 04:33, 17 December 2006 (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.