Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tuba players

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The result was keep or nomination withdrawn. Amwestover makes a good point however. I recommend the list be trimmed of non-notable subjects (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of tuba players

This list is impossible to complete. There are far too many notable tuba players in history. Textbook example of why to create a category. Category:Tubists was created for these people. Royal broil 14:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lists on Wikipedia don't need to be comprehensive, so I don't necessarily agree with nominator's perspective. However, items on a Wikipedia list should be notable, and for the most part none of these tuba players are notable. In fact, most of them are just music teachers at various colleges. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 14:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking at the category, I think it's a textbook example of a disorganized mess. It's like a damn voice-mail. I go to Category:Tubists and I get "For Category:Tubists by nationality press 1. For Category:Tubists by genre, press 2." OK, press 1. "Please select from the following options: For Category:Classical tubists by nationality press 1. For Category:Jazz tubists by nationality press 2. For Category:American tubists press 3. For Category:Belgian tubists, press 4..." Beep. "You selected Category:Classical tubists by nationality. For Category:American classical tubists press 1. For Category:Norwegian classical tubists, press two. For Category:British classical tubists, press 3...." Sure Category:Tubists may have created for these people; but I'd rather have something that was created for me. Mandsford (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Gmatsuda (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This list encourages creation of articles for the redlinked tuba players, which a category can't do. (Personally, I'm of the opinion every mention of Tubists should be changed to tuba player, but perhaps that's the non-native English speaker in me. Never heard the word before today) - Mgm|^(talk) 23:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know. A lot of us can't refer to a piano player as a pianist without laughing. Mandsford (talk) 01:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If a tuba player is red linked, it's usually for a reason: they're not notable. I think an indiscriminate list would encourage the adding of non-notable information, which isn't the goal of Wikipedia. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 02:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The converse of that statement would be that if a name is blue linked, then the subject is notable; and yet we debate the notability of blue links all the time. We can't assume anything about notability from a red-link or a blue-link. All that a red link means is that there is not an article by that title on Wikipedia. Given that there are probably only a handful of editors who keep current with the world of tuba, I'm not surprised if there aren't that many articles. Mandsford (talk) 05:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The intention of my comment was to point out that an indiscriminate list for non-notable individuals may encourage the further adding of non-notable information to Wikipedia. An indiscriminate list is going to be loaded with red links (or nonlinks), which may result in non-notable articles being created, which would result in more deletion nominations. So might as well nip it in the butt and delete the non-notable list from the start. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 06:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Heh heh, you said "nip it in the butt", huh huh.) A discriminate list of notable individuals may contain a lot of red-links too, if the subject matter has not been popular among Wikipedia editors so far. One cannot properly judge the notability of the people on a list purely by the amount of red-links. I myself have created several red-links for people who and subjects which I know are notable, but I simply don't have the time to write the article. DHowell (talk) 00:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and the unlinked ones here would probably be quite suitable for articles, so the only thing needed to do is to make them.DGG (talk) 05:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely, I disagree with both of you on what to do with an article that has red links in it. I don't think a red-link should be an invitation to create an article, but I don't think that we have to delete articles because they contain red-links either. We should worry about whether Wikipedia articles have accurate information; people would disagree about what might constitute "non-notable information". Assuming that refers to irrelevant material, everyone has the right to edit an article. What I do see here is that a lot of the articles that are concealed in that mess called "Category:Tubists" should be on this list as well. I count 16 articles just from American classical tuba players alone that could be added. Mandsford (talk) 02:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was not making a general statement about red links being something that shouldalways be filled in, but that in this case, from the positions of the people given in the list, I think that probably sufficient material could be found either as creative artists or wp:prof. DGG (talk) 19:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination After reviewing WP:LIST and reading the better developed List_of_clarinetists, I see that my rationale for nominating this article for deletion was incorrect. I withdraw this nomination. I ask the next admin (or next non-admin closure person) to close this discussion. Royal broil 03:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mandsford and WP:CLN (lists should not be deleted in favor of categories, as each method of navigation may be preferred by many editors and readers over the other); per WP:SALAT (the solution to an over-broad list is to split it into more manageable lists; this does not require deletion); and per the nominator's withdrawal (does this mean we can ignore Gmatsuda's "delete per nom" above?). DHowell (talk) 23:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:15, 17 December 2008 (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.