Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of R&B musicians (2nd nomination)

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of R&B musicians

Procedural nomination. Was previously deleted at AfD but at least five "Delete" votes were by sockpuppets - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JamesBurns/Archive. Therefore relisting. I am neutral. Black Kite 18:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my nomination reasoning, also list is too indiscriminate. Secret ^account 19:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a case where a category is appropriate and a list is not. WP:LISTCRUFT doesn't apply to categories, which are not articles in the mainspace, but it certainly applies here. Per WP:STAND, lists like this need to abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. This list fails WP:V as sources aren't present that show that these people are indeed R&B musicians. It is also nothing but a directory listing of information as it is only a laundry list without any further discussion or information about the participants. How are they R&B musicians, where does it claim that they are? Also, per the nom, this list is pretty indiscriminate as there is no working definition of "R&B" that applies here. The category works wonderfully, the list doesn't. (copy/paste of my !vote at the last AfD) Them From Space 19:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the articles on the individuals consider them R&B musicians, their presence on the list is justified, just as is their inclusion in a category. However, a good deal of work will be needed in providing the information here that a list ought to provide. I'm not sure there are any valid exceptions to a category for individual being justified and not a list. DGG (talk) 02:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the actual topic of the list isn't notable (by our definition), then it shouldn't have an article. A category will be sufficient if no other encyclopedic information can be explained about the topic. Also, as this is a discriminate encyclopedia, we can't have an infinite amount of lists about whatever topic strikes our fancy. We have categories of people born in XXXX, which clearly aren't notable enough for an encyclopedic list. Them From Space 02:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of the list is clearly notable, per reliable sources such as Stars of Soul and Rhythm & Blues and All Music Guide to Soul: The Definitive Guide to R&B and Soul, with detailed listings of hundreds of notable R&B musicians. Also, we do have lists of people born in each year at the year articles; see, for example, 1939#Births. DHowell (talk) 02:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, a category exists, but it has been diffused into several subcategories. This list allows all members of the subcategories to exist on one alphabetical list. Can this list be improved? Yes. But this is a notable topic. If there were a Category:All R & B musicians, I'd have no problem deleting this list. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 03:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We generally keep lists of musicians, because they can be expanded with detail on which group(s) the musician has worked with, timeframe the musician operated in, etc, all of which make the list more useful than a category. That this list doesn't currently include much additional information (although it does include some) is irrelevant, we consider the article it has a potential to become. JulesH (talk) 08:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 14:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ItsRTime (talk • contribs)

Could you please explain you voted as thus? Remember, plain old !votes without reasoning do not contribute towards the consensus and thus are not counted. Cheers. I'^mperator 20:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – there is nothing controversial or indiscriminate about being an R&B musician and it would be easy but time-consuming to transfer the sources from the individual articles. An intelligent bot could do it. The list could obviously be greatly improved by adding info not present in the categories but the various quibblers above would still assert that it was indiscriminate and perceive cruft; so why bother? Occuli (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-same as before- Strong Keep - The Articles hold the sources. non-R&B's sould be Edited out. if this is WP:LISTCRUFT the everything in Category:Lists of musicians by genre would also be, and I dont believe that for a second. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Reliable sources for this list include Stars of Soul and Rhythm & Blues and All Music Guide to Soul: The Definitive Guide to R&B and Soul. The topic is clearly notable; any perceived problems with this list can be solved by editing. DHowell (talk) 02:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons I gave at the last one. This is pretty much WP:Listcruft. Spiesr (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —Spiesr (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep but make it into a category. Jwray (talk) 05:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Such a category already exsists so are you saying we should keep the article or just have the category? Spiesr (talk) 17:24, 27 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.