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. The support for keeping this list from people such as Gwalla and Rigadoun seem reasonable enough, and have strong enough support in the community behind them to prevent a consensus from forming here. Objections based on WP:NOTDIR have been noted, and they raise some valid points, and some less convincing points:

• Most concerning is the fact that most of the ensembles on the list are not notable, have no article, and probably deserve no article, which eliminates the "navigation" and "development" purpose of lists, and leaves "information", information on subjects which we generally deem not notable.
• In contrast I found "based on a directory" arguments less convincing, because using a directory as a major source does not mean the list itself needs to be a directory.

The issue of the notability of entries would probably sway me to vote "delete" on this, but I cannot see that making a difference here. There are reasonable arguments on both sides of the debate, the "keep" voters point out that several of the sources cited in the article are independent, and that makes a reasonable argument that WP:N is met. In a case like this, where each side has received support from about half the participants, I cannot see enough support behind the view that this is a directory to call a consensus for deletion, nor is there an obvious violation of the fundamental policies of WP:V or WP:NOR that I can overrule the lack of consensus here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of gamelan ensembles in the United States[edit]

List of gamelan ensembles in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Procedural nomination. Was previously deleted at AfD but 3 of the 6 "Delete" votes were by sockpuppets - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JamesBurns/Archive. Therefore relisting. I am neutral. Black Kite 19:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Many people will find this reference useful in various circumstances. Scholarly research about the growth of musical communities will be facilitated by having it available. People who are interested in contacting groups in a particular geographical area can use it. It looks to me that the objections to this entry are technical; the positive comments are from people aware of its extreme value. The benefit of Wikipedia is that over time this article will be enriched by contributions of others, who can add depth and correct mistakes. Conscientia (talk) 01:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saying the article has "extreme value" is an opinion; not exactly a matter we take into consideration during deletion discussions. You are also aware that you are basically calling the article a directory, are you not? GraYoshi2x►^talk 02:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many lists have directory aspects to them. The guidelines are meant to discourage lists that are merely directories -- list of just links, lists of just addresses, etc... The issue is not as black and white as you present it. There are shades of gray, and personally, I think gray is good and should be left alone. I find most of the Lists of video games or List of Pokemon characters to be non-notable cruft but I let them be. Removing gray just alienates people as can be evidenced in this discussion. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 11:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a useful reference for me and for anyone else interested in gamelan. It has a body of people committed to keeping it current. It has potential for expansion and linkage. Weeboat (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only contribution made to Wikipedia by Weeboat. --Ronz (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this is a contribution made by someone who just USES Wikipedia rather than someone who edits. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 22:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is standard practice in AfD's to identify new editors. --Ronz (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongest Possible Keep Gamelan are sophisticated musical ensembles, each with a unique composition and tuning, playing significant historical and newly-composed repertoire. Though originating in Java and Bali, gamelan groups have become, in the past half-century, musical institutions throughout the United States, with some emsembles having more than fourty years of continuous performance, comparable to some orchestras in longevity. Furthermore, gamelan in the US have commissioned and performed important new works of serious music, for example those by Lou Harrison or Michael Tenzer. The reasons given for deletion are petty and bureaucratic, and completely disregard the content of the article. Dr. Daniel Wolf, composer and ethnomusicologist, Frankfurt, Germany —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.193.119.64 (talk) 05:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This above comment looks awfully suspicious on further inspection. It certainly reminds me of Badagnani's manner of writing, and he has already "voted" below. I certainly hope this isn't an attempt to game the system or sockpuppet. GraYoshi2x►^talk 01:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I doubt that this ip is another editor voting here, it is the only contribution to Wikipedia from this ip. --Ronz (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear "Ronz", whoever you are. I am a Wikipedia reader with professional credentials in the field in question, not an editor and I signed with my real name and location. I also happened to have written about American Gamelan recently in my blog: http://renewablemusic.blogspot.com/2009/03/our-other-orchestra.html I have no connection to any "Badagnani" and, as I am easy to contact, verifying my comment before assuming something suspicious would have been the polite thing to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.193.69.163 (talk) 08:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Kindly strike the above comment, which is outrageous! Badagnani (talk) 02:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ip does resolve to Germany as the editor said. Dlabtot (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as yet another indiscriminate list. The sources are not third party and violates DIRECTORY and WP:NOTGUIDE; the list itself is even credited as coming from a directory! A category would be relevant here as categories do not need the in-depth encyclopedic coverage that lists do. (copy/paste of my !vote in the last AfD) ThemFromSpace 19:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – the delete reasons are frivolous. indiscriminate has no bearing whatever on this list, a category can only contain existing articles (or redirects, and there are none that I can find), and the guidelines for lists specifically include such as List of minor characters in Dilbert where the items in the list are not individually notable. Occuli (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as I deleted it in the first place. The nomination is valid. --Tone 20:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per previous AfD and WP:NOTDIR. The article was copied from a directory and is being maintained as a directory. The only source is a directory. All the other "notes" are just linkspam to official websites. --Ronz (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Let's take a step back here. The reasons we have guidelines about directories and links is to prevent pages from becoming spam magnets. That has never been a problem with this list, nor will it ever be. This list is comprehensive. I've endeavored to add every gamelan ensemble that exists in the US. Most of these ensembles are connected to educational institutions as part of their ethnomusicology programs. If each of these ensembles had a page about them, this list would look more like our List of symphony orchestras. However, Gamelan music is much more obscure than symphony orchestras so many of these organizations do not need an article about them. It makes more sense to combine them all here in one list, with the most relevant information about the ensembles. It also makes sense to use links to each organization to verify the existence and information about each ensemble. Using links to verify the basic facts of an organization is in keeping with our guidelines. So is this list to be faulted because it is comprehensive and includes all ensembles? Like many other lists on Wikipedia, this list has become more accurate than the original sources used to create it. Since Wikis collect information from many sources, and have the input of a multitude of contributors it is ideal at becoming a resource for these types of lists. Deleting them is cutting off your nose to spite your face. The guidelines that are being invoked to justify the deletion of this page are being invoked without applying the guidelines' underlying rationale. This list is verifiable, useful information that is not a spam magnet, nor a threat to the pillars of Wikipedia. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 23:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As it currently stands, this artle is a spam magnet, as all of the ensembles are linked to directly. They should be linked through third-party sources. None of the links to their homepages are relevant in this list, as Wikipedia is not a linkfarm. Furthermore, the list isn't discriminate as their is no inclusion criteria. Anybody can call themselves a gamelan ensemble and get a spot on here. As little or none of these ensembles have any articles, this would be documenting a nonnotable phenomenon. I can see how some ensembles can appear here if the majority have articles, but if none of them do, then odds are the collection of them as a whole don't either unless reliable, third-party sources prove otherwise. ThemFromSpace 23:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You say, "Anybody can call themselves a gamelan ensemble and get a spot on here", but in over three years nobody has. This is not the only list that has links like this. I've worked on List of largest suspension bridges which has links to the homepages of the bridges listed. If a transportation authority says that their bridge span is so many meters long, there is no reason to question that information with the requirement of a third party source. Nobody goes around independently verifying the length of bridge spans. If a gamelan ensemble says they perform on tradition Sundanese instruments, there is no reason to question this harmless bit of information. Sundanese groups do not misrepresent the use Balinese instruments and vice versa. There is no need to apply all guidelines to all articles with maximum orthodoxy. This list has an inclusion criteria, it includes ALL gamelan ensembles. It is comprehensive. I'd love to see articles about many more ensembles on this list. Just because they don't exist doesn't mean that they could not be written. I'd like to turn this discussion around. Do you have any reason to believe that there is any unreliable (not just outdated) information contained in this list? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 03:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Correct, there is not a problem with groups that are not actually gamelan ensembles in the United States attempting to "spam" Wikipedia by claiming that they are, and trying to get into the article. In fact, that is why we have specialist editors in the first place, who take an interest in improving articles on subjects they have familiarity with, and who act as a sort of "human BS detector"--one of the most successful aspects of Wikipedia, making it superior in many ways to print encyclopedias such as Britannica (which, unlike WP, I do not believe has an article listing gamelan ensembles in the United States). The sources we use are both secondary as well as primary, only using the latter when the verification of information such as the ensemble's date of establishment, Indonesian-language name, or current director can only be done in that manner. As per WP's very own, eminently reasonable policy, we use the best references possible. The policy is as follows:

“

Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source.

”

Badagnani (talk) 03:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So the most successful aspect of Wikipedia is the ability to post spam? That statement in itself doesn't make sense no matter how you interpret it. You also say there are both primary and secondary "quality" sources. All I honestly see is first-party cruft. In addition, that quote regarding novel passages have little to do with this subject. GraYoshi2x►^talk 03:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We must have different definitions of spam. I see no spam on this page. Be careful what you call "cruft". I've spent over 30 years studying this subject. Tell me, what do you know about gamelan (if anything)? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 09:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongest possible keep - Notable musical subject and well sourced; carefully maintained and much more detailed than the original article on which it was based as regards the individual gamelans' Indonesian names, dates of founding, current directors, etc. Badagnani (talk) 00:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding extra-dramatic verbiage isn't exactly going to make your argument any more important. This is not a vote. The subject may be notable, but certainly not any of the ensembles. GraYoshi2x►^talk 01:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As my previous nomination stated, it is no more than a linkfarm and directory, which we both strongly discourage on Wikipedia. At least several of the ensembles should have an article that meets all notability criteria for even considering having a list on this subject. Lists should, most of the time, link to articles, not external links. Also note the very bottom of the page; the article even shows that it is based on a directory! GraYoshi2x►^talk 01:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've now spent an hour or so converting it into a table (as I suggested in the last Afd). I think that makes it clearer how this is/can be an encyclopedic list.
  The directory that this was based off of - [1] - hasn't updated since 2006 - except to add a note pointing to our more current listing.
  I've also added a second main reference, the list from the official Embassy of Indonesia.
  Contemplate how it could be a useful list, and discuss things from that perspective... instead of spending time thinking only of reasons to delete. The adversarial attitude encountered here is frustrating and retrograde. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This still needs independant sources for verification. Honestly I don't see why people spend so much time trying to "save" lists like this when no encyclopedic material exists on a collective group of Gamelan ensembles. I've looked for sources and can't find any to back up this article as an independant topic. Perhaps some of these groups are notable enough for their own articles, but the collective bunch isn't notable enough for a list. You can't create encyclopedic material when none exists to begin with, that's original research. ThemFromSpace 03:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We use both secondary and primary sources, in line with our own WP policy:

“

Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source.

”

We must be reasonable in everything we do, and keep our users foremost in our minds, and adhering to this WP policy is eminently reasonable. Creating the best possible article listing gamelan ensembles in the United States necessitates using the best sources available, which we are doing. Thank you for your interest in this article and let's work together to make it the best possible article on this subject anywhere on the Internet--or anywhere else, for that matter. It's a point of pride that so many of our WP articles are the best articles on their subjects anywhere. Badagnani (talk) 03:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That policy is about content and not whether a topic should be included at all. Per WP:N a topic (like this list) must be covered in independant sources. We have to take from previously published sources in order to determine notability of the subject matter. If that can't be determined the article isn't fit for inclusion. That's what WP:N is all about. As for the content within the article, primary sources aren't the best tools for verification, but they will do if secondary sources cannot be found. That being said, entire articles cannot be sustained on primary sources, and it would be impossible to build up an encyclopedic article without them and without using original research. Also, Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that has ever existed. Lists like this must be discriminate. When the inclusion criteria is "anything goes" it turns from an encyclopedia article into an indiscriminate list and a directory listing. Wikipdia isn't the yellow pages. ThemFromSpace 03:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, the sources you cite are all primary sources, and directories at that. We do have to be reasonable in everything we do, and for one it is not pushing spammy links into Wikipedia. GraYoshi2x►^talk 03:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am a long-time and productive editor, and never add information that is not essential or notable to Wikipedia. Our policy on sources is eminently reasonable, and we use only the best sources possible. The subject of gamelans in America is quite notable and the page is properly sourced. However, it could always be better, so let's work together to make it the best possible article on this subject. Badagnani (talk) 04:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —-- Quiddity (talk) 03:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —-- Quiddity (talk) 03:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Directory of non-notable musical groups. Perhaps we should include phone numbers and addresses? This would be better served as a category, if there are even enough actual articles to justify a category. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- Article is just like advertising. 207.233.67.8 (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments
  1. List of number-one albums of 2008 (U.S.) is entirely sourced from a single primary reference, the Billboard charts site. It was featured recently. In contrast, this gamelan list is mainly sourced from the secondary reference list maintained by the Indonesian Embassy in Washington DC - "[2]". ((cite web)): External link in |title= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)[3], and a list maintained by Dartmouth University (Ivy League!) and the American Gamelan Institute - [4]. The "Notes" section is to separate out the confirmation-citations, as were requested years ago, and primary sources are perfectly acceptable for confirming uncontroversial details - see the featured List of vegetable oils and the many discussions at WP:RS/N.
  2. As has been pointed out, and agreed, not all items on a list need to be notable, and even none can be individually. It's nice if all or most of the items in a list are notable, but it is not necessary. See List of Caribbean membranophones and List of awards and nominations received by Coldplay and List of pipe organ stops and List of pipe organ builders and List of drum majors, commanders and directors of the Highty-Tighties and List of concerts at Parken Stadium as a sublist from Parken Stadium#Concert venue for some of the hundreds of examples.
  3. I wonder if perhaps the nature of the list is being misunderstood? Most of these people don't even have anything to sell! and most of them are part of major University Music Departments... The few ensembles that do have albums for sale on major labels will be notable and have articles written about them in due time.
  4. Or perhaps some of you haven't learned what a gamelan is yet? "A gamelan is a set of instruments as a distinct entity, built and tuned to stay together — instruments from different gamelan are generally not interchangeable." Look at the pictures. This is not like a "list of guitar ensembles" (which would be unmanageable and indiscriminate). These are instruments for groups, like church bells are. Impossible to play by oneself.
• Does that help anyone see the goal and differences and relevant-contexts? -- Quiddity (talk) 08:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The claim that the notes are references of some sort seems to be a rationalization for keeping the links regardless of what they link to. From what I can tell, the links were simply copied to be used as official sites. --Ronz (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Official sites are perfectly allowable as sources for simple descriptive claims. It is only when NOR or NPOV become an issue that official sites are insufficient. See WP:NOR#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources: "Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." and WP:RS#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources: "While they can be reliable in many situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research." See all the examples of featured lists I gave above. See almost any article - we use official sites as references constantly. Ask at WT:RS or WP:RSN if you are still in doubt. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Quiddity is quite correct in this, and eminently reasonable in his/her reasoning (as our policies are). Badagnani (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB concerning your claims about using them as sources.

More importantly, "From what I can tell, the links were simply copied to be used as official sites." In other words, the links aren't sources. If anyone bothered to look, they'd see that some of the links verify nothing at all. Given this, I think the claim that they are references is a rationalization. --Ronz (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What bothers me in these discussions is that nothing is proved or disproved by throwing around links to Wikipedia guideline pages. Guidelines and policies, however well they are written need to be applied and interpreted through careful discussion about their real merits and effects. If we create a policy to prevent unwanted spam, it does not make sense to apply it with such orthodoxy that it removes useful external links that are not added by drive-by spammers. Likewise, the need for a reliable source is essential for challenged information, but not as important for information that is unlikely to be challenged. If I created a stub for each of these groups, the guidelines recommended that a external link be added to each organizations home page. If we then decided that these organizations should be combined on one list, why then do the links go from being recommended to harmful? What is the real harm being done? There are precedents for using links this way. Even though a page has third party sources for the information, I am reasonably certain that the ultimate source for much of it is primary. Nobody goes around independently verifying most of the information that we use every day unless there is a good reason to doubt it. This is the nature of consensus reality. It would be extremely harmful to Wikipedia to apply a rigid orthodoxy about third party sources to all the information in every article and list. Such orthodoxy should be saved for pages that have real validity or maintenance issues. That is not the case here. Sure, some of the links could be better, but do you really think this page is plagued with misinformation? Also, if a third party source finds that people use Wikipedia for this information and gets lax on maintaining their own data, is that reason to delete the information from Wikipedia? If so, in a few years we'll have to delete thousands and thousands of articles and lists. As this project matures, we have to come to accept that we ARE the reliable third party source for the rest of the planet and act accordingly and modify our policies and guidelines to deal with this reality. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 19:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:Software comparisons. We use "self-published" (official) sources constantly. Ask at WT:RS if you doubt this crucial fact.

References are often used to confirm-the-existence of a subject in a list. If an editor claims that an unreferenced entry is non-existent, a link to the entry's "official page" often gets added. They are frequently used to confirm simple specifications of everything from aircraft to software. Again, ask at the relevant policy/guideline/noticeboard pages. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no indication that the majority of the entries on this list are in any way notable. Dlabtot (talk) 20:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Most/all entries in a list do not need to be notable. See List of Caribbean membranophones - Featured. See my comments above (point #3) about how the notable ensembles will eventually have articles written about them. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Caribbean membranophones is a list of notable, sourced information, therefore, it has nothing whatsoever in common with this WP:SPAM. Dlabtot (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is also highly notable and well sourced, and not any form of spam, as seems to be your opinion. Badagnani (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Notable" does not mean maybe 5 people blogged about the subject, and "well sourced" does not mean "smack on a bunch of primary sources and we're done for the day." Well-sourced doesn't literally mean "many sources", it means that there are many various independent sources to verify the subject. The lists and categories Quiddity linked to above is a very weak argument. For one thing, software comparisons are comparisons, not lists. The mebranophone list is truly well-sourced with many independent sources and verifiable information. Simply converting everything to a fancy-looking table does not fix the root problem. GraYoshi2x►^talk 22:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the entries in the List of Caribbean membranophones are not notable (or at least they have no article link, currently). That was dlabtot's deletion rationale. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That statement is false. A good-faith error no doubt stemming from the fact that most entries like tumba don't link to their WP pages (Tumba (drum). At any rate, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument, the state of the List of Caribbean membranophones article is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Dlabtot (talk) 23:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've said that ther is "no indication that the majority of the entries on this list are in any way notable." I've started adding third party sources that mention these groups, and that has not been difficult. Many of these groups have performed in major venues, and were reviewed in major newspapers. But let us assume that you are correct, and that a majority have not. Do you think it would be better to have a list of only those groups that have this third-party coverage? I do not. I think it is far better to have a comprehensive list of all the ensembles, and make it transparent that some of the ensembles information comes directly from their website. Including them all makes the list more useful, and makes it less likely that we would have to fight over which belong and which do not. Lists are often recommended as a way of handling entries that are not individually notable, but that collectively are. The topic of Gamelan in America has been discussed in Journals, Newspapers and Encyclopedia entries. These are in the list of references. If the topic is valid and many of the groups are notable, then what is wrong with having the list? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 00:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't publish lists of things that exist, we publish lists of things that are notable enough to include in Wikipedia. We don't need a list with three entries; if a sufficient number of US gamelan ensembles achieve such notoriety that they meet our notability guidelines, then this list would be appropriate; now, it is not. Dlabtot (talk) 00:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We publish plenty of lists of things that exist. There has not been a consensus on the meaning of "notability" since I started contributing to Wikipedia 5 years ago. In fact there are contradictory guidelines about this all over Wikipedia space. When I was working on getting a list about bridges featured, I was encouraged to create stubs for many bridges that I did not think worthy an article. Others have stated, just as emphatically that a better way to deal with less notable information is to combine them all in one list. The more that people zealously try to enforce their own orthodoxy by becoming deletionist, the more people are driven away from this project. All this effort is counter-productive. It would be much better to work on making things transparent. If someone looks at an entry on this list and sees information about a group from an article in the New York Times, they might trust it more than the website of the group. Ironically, information is often more accurate in the primary source. Either way, a reader should be able to understand the difference and make their own judgment. And really, all of this information is totally uncontroversial and not worth one percent of the energy that we are all putting into these discussions. Your efforts are not "saving" Wikipedia. They are having the opposite effect by driving away loyal contributors. I for one, spend much less time contributing than I used to because of this. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 10:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is an excellent, and quite accurate assessment. Such efforts to destroy our content do tend to drive away valued editors. Badagnani (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying we should create whatever articles we want on some obscure subject. Sure, let's do that. In the end, we'll just be destroying Wikipedia. This encyclopedia didn't form from just eventualism; a mostly-"immediatist" (as you say) community helped it to grow. What will waiting for other editors to fix up this article do? AFAIK cruft does not fare very well on WP. It would be better to recreate the article at a later date when there are actually numerous independent and verifiable references to establish notability as well as not being entirely dependent on a linkfarm/directory to survive. GraYoshi2x►^talk 00:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:NOTE (the one guideline that really matters as far as AfD is concerned) requires that notability be established by reference to reliable third party sources that are independant of the subject. This list is missing such sources. Hence, not notable. Blueboar (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I've been adding these sources. They are not hard to find, most of the groups are notable. Since the list is meant to be comprehensive, it is not be possible to find third party links for all of them. When creating this list, I didn't think most of the groups warranted their own separate article, so a list seemed more appropriate. Also, reliable sources are critical for information that is challanged. It is much less critical when information is not challanged. Nobody has challanged the accuracy of this list, just the lack of third party sources. Now that there are third party sources, do you still object? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 23:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point to some sources you've added that establish the notability of entries on the list? For example, the NY Times link that you added, while it does mention Gamelan Semara Santi, Gamelan Semara Santi is not the subject of the article. We have specific criteria for establishing notability for musical acts - and a single mention in an article about someone else does not meet those criteria. (From WP:BAND - Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable. ) Dlabtot (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BAND is for determining whether a musical group merits a stand-alone article. The standards for inclusion within a larger article have always been lower than those for being the subject of an article. This is why List of minor characters in *notable work of fiction* articles exist. Bib Fortuna isn't important enough to get an article, but it's fine to stick him in List of Star Wars characters, for example. — Gwalla | Talk 22:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

20 or 30 non-notable ensembles don't become notable by being grouped together on a list. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is simply not a valid argument. Dlabtot (talk) 06:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS has any relevance to this. I wasn't saying that this article should exist because List of Star Wars characters exists. I was saying that individual members of a list do not have to merit stand-alone articles, which is what WP:BAND is about, and using a minor Star Wars character as an example. This is hardly a controversial stance. The notability of the list's topic as a whole is what is relevant here, as well as whether the list can be more informative than simply listing contact info (it already is, so that shouldn't be an issue anymore). — Gwalla | Talk 16:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I acknowledge your failure to understand how WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is relevant. I'm not going to engage in a lengthy off-topic discussion, so you can have the last word, but I will note that there is no difficulty in establishing the notability of Bib Fortuna. Dlabtot (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT article says "Gamelan Semara Santi, an ensemble from Swarthmore College devoted to the study of the music of Bali." This confirms the information in this list from a third party. The article talks about them performing with the Philadelphia Orchestra at Carnegie Hall. The subject of the article was the performance at Carnegie. They performed. They weren't the top billing, but they were still one of the subjects that the article covered. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 04:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Not an indiscriminate list, and not WP:HOPELESS. While we couldn't have a list of garage bands, there seems to be sufficient overhead in putting together a gamelan ensemble that there are only ~100 in the United States, most of them sponsored by universities. Also the idea of listing them is not only considered important by The American Gamelan Institute/Dartmouth University, but a similar list is published by the Embassy of Indonesia itself (both are external links from the article). While we could simply link to these sites from our main article on gamelan, the WP list can be made encyclopedic. While line-items in a list don't each have to meet WP:N, I'd like to see at least a mention of each ensemble in some kind of source other than the band's website or the Darmouth or embassy lists. Each has almost certainly been mentioned in local or college newspapers, or publications of the colleges hosting each ensemble. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Taking your suggestion, I've started adding these cites. Of the dozen or so groups I did searches for, I found it fairly easy to find articles about almost all them. -- ☑ SamuelWantman

• Comment in all of this marvellous discussion I have seen no reference to Gamelan_outside_Indonesia - which is inherently related. But then the issues seem to have grown over time - anyone with any curiosity beyond the immediate arguments here might want to see how the United States section looks in the article just mentioned. I'd love to see what the various eds and proponents of arguments above would do with the telephone number lists that exist SatuSuro 13:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gamelan outside Indonesia is not a list and although still links to primary sources, is in much better shape. At least there all we have to be concered about is the lack of proper references. This gamelan ensemble list is a directory supplying no useful tidbits of information, only some basic cruft (which I assume is directly ripped from the mentioned directory). GraYoshi2x►^talk 01:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clearly not indiscriminate, it supplements existing articles on Gamelan, American gamelan, and Gamelan outside Indonesia (which should probably be merged into the parent article, but that's a separate issue), along with Category:American gamelan ensembles. Also, not a mere collection of links: the bulk of the list is informative, with links relegated to a references section at the bottom. This is sourced from third-party sources: the Indonesian embassy, the Dartmouth list, and the American Gamelan Institute. Third-party references do not "drown" if presented among "too many" primary sources: either they are there or they are not, and in this case they are. This could not be replaced with a category, because categories cannot present additional at-a-glance information as this list does, or organize their contents in anything but alphabetical order (this list is geographical): this is the whole reason why lists are allowed to exist alongside categories. — Gwalla | Talk 18:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  FYI, All the articles (including this list) started as part of Gamelan. The links to this list were removed after the first AFD. --☑ SamuelWantman 19:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I figured as much. And some of the links are still there (or were re-added). — Gwalla | Talk 19:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There should not be any additional "at-a-glance" information in the first place. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages, and I can't make any sense of your reason. There must be verifiable and independent sources, not a whole bunch of primary directories. If there's no possible way anyone can get it out of directory format, then it is WP:HOPELESS and should be deleted. The list is also not any more informative than a directory; don't let the fancy looking table fool your eyes. It is also complete nonsense to have a list when we have a single article about a non-notable gamelan. The whole purpose of lists is to link to other Wikipedia pages that relate to it! GraYoshi2x►^talk 01:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you think that an ensemble that has been reviewed by the New York Times and the San Francisco Chronicle, that recorded a soundtrack to a DVD, that was was the subject of a PBS documentary, is not notable? One purpose of lists is to link to articles that already exist. Another reason is to inspire people to write articles about could and should exist. Gamelan is an important part of the culture of Indonesia and taught in ethnomusicology programs around the world. Just because you know nothing about it does not make it non-notable. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 02:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of gamelan ensembles itself is notable, but this list provides no clue as to whether or not the individual ensembles are notable or not. The ones I've searched for barely reach the 100 hit mark on Google. You seem to be missing the point.

Also, what about the issue of this article being a directory? That is the defining issue right here and there's little you can do to change it. If this article can be recreated at a later date without entirely depending on a directory, sure. Now, no. GraYoshi2x►^talk 00:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Categories, lists, and navigation templates guideline explicitly states that annotations are one of the advantages of lists, so no, there is no reason why that data should not be there so long as it is informative. The information is mostly descriptive (such as the type of instrumentation, whether they play traditional or "new music", etc.), not contact info, so "Wikipedia is not the yellow pages" is irrelevant. It does have third-party sources—as I said before, the fact that there are lots of primary sources does not make the third-party sources nonexistent. As for "It is also complete nonsense to have a list when we have a single article about a non-notable gamelan", I'm not sure what you're talking about: just in Category:American gamelan ensembles there are two articles on gamelan ensembles that pass WP:BAND easily. The whole purpose of lists is to be informative; the guidelines on lists do not say that they must be used exclusively to list existing articles. — Gwalla | Talk 22:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, I added info to the lede as I had no clue what a gamelan was, even though I've certainly heard the music. I think this list need to explain itself more how these ensembles are tied to preserving culture much as other folk arts do and showing they take part in community, music and folk art festivals that the main article does not. It may also make sense to incorporate List of gamelan varieties together with this into List of gamelan varieties and ensembles. There is a good article here somewhere and I feel we're on the path. -- Banjeboi 01:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - No sense at all - different domaions - Please do not - if you can help it - take this Afd/ circus into the Wiki Project Indonesia domain/project area - you folks are having your circus here about a list to do with things specifically in the 'US' - it would be appreciated if you deal with that specifically here at this Afd - please do not take it into modifying articles in the Indonesia project - if you wish to do so it is outside of this Afd and outside of the US project area - it is a different context and I would probably personally seriously dissalow almost all that has been written above as anything to do with editing within the Indonesian project or its articles - just deal with this one article/listy if you can please - with whatevewr AGF and civility you can grip on SatuSuro 06:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Is it just me, or does this page seem to have some sock/meatpuppeting going on? The reasons made by Conscienta, the anon IP, and Weeboat look extremely similar, and they have hardly contributed anything else to Wikipedia. GraYoshi2x►^talk 02:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments removed. Why was this done? Kindly restore them. Badagnani (talk) 05:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've restored my comments, and User:Ronz has apologized on my user talkpage. It appears to have been an accident. — Gwalla | Talk 20:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lists are for enumerations of notable members of categories (notable in the sense that there should be articles on the members). There are Wikipedia articles on exactly two of the listed groups, and doesn't appear to be likelihood of the proportion increasing towards 100%. WP:NOTDIR. Bongomatic 07:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:AOAL does not seem to back you up on that assertion. The guideline specifically states that redlinks and entries that are not on their own notable enough to merit full articles are acceptable. — Gwalla | Talk 20:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree that the article reads too much like a directory, but the subject of Gamelan bands in the United States is notable and there's nothing to stop editors from making the article more encyclopedic. And subjects that aren't quite notable enough for their own articles can be good to include in a broader subject as is done here. Deletion would make the encyclopedia less complete and less useful as this notable subject matter would be lost. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia policy and practice tends to discourage lists that are sourced only to the websites of the entries. (This constantly comes up in the realm of software, where the spam pressure is strong). The problem seems to be that these gamelan ensembles do not attract enough press coverage so that they can acquire individual references in reliable sources. The best-written article seems to be Gamelan. The American gamelan article is not so great now, but it deserves to be kept and expanded, since it tends to aggregate the press coverage which is too thin to cover all the groups individually. This does not rule out particular American bands, such as Gamelan Sekar Jaya and Gamelan Son of Lion getting their own articles when the coverage is sufficient. EdJohnston (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all the entries were sourced from the AGI (listed at the bottom). Third party cites are being added for many of the groups. Spam pressure has never been a problem with this list so you are solving a problem that does not exist here. There is no policy that requires that every entry on a list have its own article, nor should there be. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 19:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don't see the problem with the referencing, since it is mainly not from the self-published sites, but the AGI and Embassy lists. Perhaps the few entries which are not in any third-party citations should be deleted. As far as notability, there is no need for each group on this list to have the notability of its own article, that's one of the advantages of lists like this. The phenomenon of there being a number of gamelans in the U.S. of various types is certainly notable. This list then supports that claim and gives further information as to its geographical and stylistic spread. Most of the ensembles are connected with universities, so remember that their notability is established not exclusively WP:MUSIC, but rather related to their academic purpose (which I don't know any specific guidelines on). I would add another column for who directs the gamelan ensembles, which would have several people with articles. Another useful column would be the date established. You should make the list sortable by the different categories, too, so that one could more quickly see, say, how many Sundanese ensembles there are, or in what order they were established. Rigadoun (talk) 05:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take note of these good suggestions to add date of establishment and director columns, as well as to add sortability. Badagnani (talk) 05:48, 28 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.