Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ambient artists

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 of the debate was keep.--Ezeu 18:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of ambient artists

Would be better served by a category. As is often the case for this kind of article, it's full of dubious entries, redlinked bands I've never heard of, and even several entries which are external links only. I see nothing here which can't be done better in a category. Delete. kingboyk 12:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems very hard to maintain and a complete version of this list would be absurdly huge. Category would be better. Wickethewok 13:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Originally delete, but after having a look around and realising there's actually many of these articles of the form 'List of <genre> artists', I can't see what makes this one so exceptional. Iae 15:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't understand what the point of these genre artist lists is. The lists are so long that they don't really seem that usable. I can understand for more obscure genres where there would only be a couple dozen stand out artists, but at least there isn't like a List of rock artists. Wickethewok 15:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note - For now I have cleaned up the list by removing spammy links, etc... Wickethewok 15:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What makes this one so exceptional is that I found it. I don't patrol Wikipedia looking for garbage to delete, but when I find it (in this case whilst looking at "what links here" for a Featured Article I've been working on), I nominate it. If there are other useless lists that should be nominated for deletion, please go right ahead and nominate or drop me a line with the titles on my talk page. A bad article should never be kept just because other bad articles exist. --kingboyk 15:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm quite new here, but I was presuming looking at the sheer number of articles of this form that there has been some kind of discussion on whether they should be allowed at some point before. This article could be genuinely useful to a reader (admittedly not in its current state). Eventually this article can be put into some kind of chronological order, like other genre articles, and be annotated, which is impossible with categories. Iae 16:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response - That sounds like a different kind of article. Lists (at least the ones I've seen) are just typically an alphabetic ordering of articles. I'm not quite sure what to call the type of thing you are describing, but I wouldn't use the term "list". Wickethewok 16:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By annotations, I just mean small comments alongside the entries. Most lists have these. In the case of this article it would be beneficial to have the years the artists was active, or, in the case of confusing entries such as Radiohead's or Broken Social Scene's, to clarify exactly why they are included. This can't be done with a category. If you don't even think that would be worthwhile, then fair enough, I'll let it go and give up. However, after looking through the articles here, very very few are good enough to not be replaced by an equivalent category so I can't even give an example of what I'm describing. Basically, I'm coming round to agreeing with you, but I can see potential usefulness for an article like this. I still think a proper discussion should be conducted somewhere relevent to all the genre list articles beforehand though (if that's possible). Iae 17:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Kingboyk and Wickethewok. Use a category instead. -- Slowmover
- Comment. If the list is modified to an annotated list per Iae, then I would change my vote to keep. -- Slowmover 17:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though I'd like to see this just as a category, there are numerous List of <genre> artists as pointed out by Iae. Personally, I think they are utter junk... but this would be better discussed as an across the board process discussion about all of these lists rather than in individual (or mass) AfDs. No compelling reason to simply delete this one list.--Isotope23 16:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as useful list. Capitalistroadster 20:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please explain what is useful for an unanotated list that could as well be a category. BlueValour 21:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very useful list, annotations are possible (and a very good idea) raising this beyond category-fodder. As for "it's full of ... redlinked bands I've never heard of", there are few if any red-links, and AFAIK the nominator not having heard of something in an article isn't in itself reason for deletion (otherwise I could find plenty of things to AFD!) Grutness...wha? 02:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Note that I removed the dozens of red-linked artists no one has ever heard of and got several of the articles linked to previously deleted. So, yeah, this is the de-spammed version. Wickethewok 03:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes sense Grutness...wha? 02:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Strong delete It is a list that is just a list. For a list to be merited it needs added value; something that a category cannot do. This List fails all tests. BlueValour 21:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Capitalistroadster. Useful for people interested in this music. --JJay 02:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its a useful list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.207.216 (talk • contribs)

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.