Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Libertarian musicians

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Well as much as I'd like to spend hours creating a new list for you guys... that's not the closer's job. If anyone wants this content to work on a new list, let me know and I'll userfy it for you. W.marsh 13:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of Libertarians by occupation:[edit]

A libertarian politician is a notable intersection. A libertarian scholar is a notable intersection. This is just trivia at best. Bulldog123 00:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of these entries are unsubstantiated and I'd question the usefulness of lists like this anyway. BTLizard 11:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This could be interesting if done well.--Gloriamarie 17:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe, but WP:INTERESTING. Bulldog123 15:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument. DHowell 04:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is an encyclopedia, not youtube. "Interesting" is not a valid keep argument in any way. Instead of saying all that, I prefer to link to WP:INTERESTING. Bulldog123 20:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsubstantiated speculation. XTC, Steely Dan, Blues Traveler, Rush...??? Dragomiloff 00:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into a single List of libertarians (with a small "l"), à la List of atheists, and remove any entries which are not supported by reliable sources (noting that reliable source citations may exist on the article about the person rather than in these lists). Many of the people on these lists seem to have such sources. (And the article on Rush, at least, describes the band as libertarian.) DHowell 02:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment I really fail to understand why deletion would be prefereable to merging and pruning the list to reliably sourced (WP:RS) and verifiable (WP:V) entries, of which there are many among these lists. It would certainly not violate any policies, especially if improved, and would be acceptable under the WP:LIST guidelines. DHowell 04:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems a value judgement to think that the political opinions of academics are worthy of listing but that those of musicians are not. Nick mallory 15:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I really don't know what you're talking about. An entertainer's political opinions ARE less relevant than an political scientists' or a politicians'. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. Bulldog123 16:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If an entertainer's policital opinion wasn't important, then there wouldn't be reliable sources commenting on that political opinion. DHowell 04:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wrong. Reliable sources can comment on a person's number of siblings and parent's professions. List of people who's fathers were doctors isn't gonna cut it. Bulldog123 20:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into a list of libertarians and prune uncited entries. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 08:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a typical undercited attempt to claim a list of minor celebrities for an unrelated causes. Mangoe 12:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete undercited, could cause large-scale disagrements about validity of entries, lists with no other content tend to be boring. Lurker 17:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then remove the uncited and/or controversial content, and add content which makes it not "boring". People may find many articles on Wikipedia "boring", but "Wikipedia is not boring" is not one of our policies. DHowell 04:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BTLizard. Clicketyclack 22:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete unencyclopedic intersection. I.e. this is an indescriminant collection of information and should be deleted even if it can be sourced. Eluchil404 23:45, 26 May 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.