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 keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 18:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of country performers by era[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced. Redundant to List of country music performers. Full of OR and redlinks and spam. Doesn't navigate in any way that existing lists and categories do not. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dividing this very long list up by era makes sense, and is useful, the prime requisite for a list. Lists are, after all, navigational devices. DGG ( talk ) 08:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It still seems redundant. Why not simply divide the main List of country music performers into sections in that article? The criteria for "era" in this one seem acceptable, so they can be used in the other article. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Extremely inaccurate deletion rationale (eg, only one section of this lengthy lists has a significant number of redlinks, easily addressed by routine editing if called for). No significant OR violations, and lists of articles don't require replication of sourcing found in the articles themselves. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I notice you didn't address the fact that it is redundant to List of country music performers. Would you mind offering an opinion on that? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply. Because chronologically organized lists aren't interchangeable with alphabetical lists; I would have thought that self-evident. Note that, per WP:LIST, structured lists are typically more valuable than unstructured lists, so that, if redundancy were an important concern, the less valuable, alphabetical list would be the better deletion target. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair enough. I haven't !voted yet, since I wanted to hear arguments from both sides, but your arguments appear correct. Keep. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 01:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The alphabetical list is comprehensive but hard to make sense of. Classified and hierarchical lists are always more useful. That said, while the alphabetical list is more comprehensive we should keep both. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we have to be wary of over-listification, but I don't see anything wrong with this one. Provides an accessable entry point to research that the alphabetical list doesn't. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:19, 15 March 2012 (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.