Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pipe makers

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. Mgm|^(talk) 09:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of pipe makers

Trivial and unnecessary list, magnet for spam. Almost all entries non-notable; other than Patsy Brown, the bluelinks in the article all go to disambiguation pages (without any pipe makers in them) or unrelated individuals. Likewise, the inclusion of companies (in addition to people) in the list makes it very spammy. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A quick search of JSTOR shows that Robert Reid produced a chanter with 14 keys. I don't think this is an arbitrary list. Ottre 23:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not understanding your comment — 'because a specific notable pipe maker and 8 other notable pipe makers are featured in a list of 82 pipe makers, the list is valid' - is there something else to be inferred from your mini-biographical statement? Quaeler (talk) 00:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article obviously didn't begin as "trivia". So what if it has been spammed over the years? ~~Only a thousand or so pipemakers have ever registered their own brand, so it's difficult to judge the notability of each entry.~~ Ottre 01:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete concur. Quaeler (talk) 17:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ottre 01:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For one thing, it doesn't disambiguate between musical pipes, water pipes, crack pipes, half-pipes, etc. Agreed that this will be spam magnet, but extend that concern to vandalism magnet. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AFD should be a last result, not the first place you go to. Obviously, most famous bagpipe makers probably won't have their own wikipedia articles yet. Not the most popular form of music about. But if they were mentioned in a book, or other sources, that makes them notable. References should be added for everyone listed, showing where are mentioned as being notable, be it books, newspapers, trade magazine for bagpipe makers, magazines dedicated to Scottish culture, or whatnot. Dream Focus 11:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per great big list of unsourced unverifable red links. When will wikipedia grow a spine and demand sourcing for articles?Bali ultimate (talk) 11:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary and unsubstantiated listcruft.

Comment: are you drive by voting or what? This is actually one of the most precise listings imaginable. "There are only 15 bagpipe makers in the world today" [1] Ottre 03:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that cited quote, it seems like you're trying to make a point about the present day with a 20 year old article... What am i missing there? WRT precision, the article isn't restricted to present day so, given that we're dealing with centuries of human history, how could it possibly ever be 'one of the most precise listings imaginable'?

Is there Wikipedia precedent for a laundry list of people, the majority of whom are unlikely to ever each have an individual article covering them? Quaeler (talk) 05:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, its centuries of the history of four or five different countries. Second, if we assume there was in fact a revival of pipe music in the 1950s and that by 1989 only fifteen different people were in the business, I think it's safe to say there are no more than fifty notable pipemakers -- ever -- worth writing about. I can't manage fifty individual articles on my own, of course, but over time it's very possible to get complete coverage of the industry. Ottre 06:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - these people are just another esoteric bunch that the, non-paper, no Deadline, wiki is excellent for covering. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seem to be many sources available for this topic while the nomination seems too speculative. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like i'm taking Zoolander crazy pills here — that's honestly a valid metric? That because the word couplet "bagpipe maker" shows up in a number of news articles (and looking at the link, not many about an actual bagpipe making person), this gives us informative data? Really? Quaeler (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glancing at the first result from that, it mentions "famous Edinburgh firm of bagpipe makers", and then the second "one of Scotland's most acclaimed bagpipe makers". Yes, there are sources out there to confirm those on the list. Dream Focus 04:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of which addresses the initial claims for article deletion: "Trivial and unnecessary list, magnet for spam. Almost all entries non-notable; other than Patsy Brown, the bluelinks in the article all go to disambiguation pages (without any pipe makers in them) or unrelated individuals. Likewise, the inclusion of companies (in addition to people) in the list makes it very spammy." Is the suggestion that we delete all individuals off the list who cannot be directly supported by a reputable citation nor has a Wiki article? Quaeler (talk) 05:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a user who keeps a watchful eye on bagpipe-related articles, mostly, I'm not hugely fussed about this one. I agree it is a magnet for spam, although I don't think that's a valid reason for deletion in itself. As for the nomination: trivial and unnecessary. Maybe. Perhaps it would be better served as a category. Almost all entries non-notable - I disagree. Many of the makers do deserve an article to my mind, although to be fair it will be hard work establishing notability and sources to Wikipedia's current standards (sigh). I do agree with Dream Focus's comment that AFD is not a reasonable response to a badly sourced article, particularly when the lister has no particular subject area knowledge. Calum (talk) 12:40, 1 June 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.