Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Columbia Records 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 13:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia Records artists[edit]

I found this lying around, and it's just an incomplete list of people "...who have recorded for Columbia Records" - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Abstain from voting. — Fire Fox 10:10, 30 May '06 10:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be in a category. --kingboyk 10:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I was going to suggest that but I forgot, heh. ...terrible memory... — Fire Fox 10:28, 30 May '06

Merge it with the Columbia Records article. Steelbeard1 12:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as listcruft. --Guinnog 12:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize and delete. -- Docether 14:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my partial (and continuing) revamp. A PERFECT example of what a list can do that a category just is not capable of. Jcuk 15:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming the "charting" of the artists continues, I vote keep. There's more info than could be provided by a category, and if the beginning of the page is any indication, this is definitely a worthwhile article. -- Kicking222 17:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment it will, but it might take me a coupla days, what with other things going on...Jcuk 22:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even with Wikipedia's unprecedented scope, I don't think that this is encyclopedic. -- Kjkolb 21:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment compared with List of Pokémon by National Pokédex number I beg to differ! *g* Jcuk 07:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as useful list and look forward to JCUK's further work. Capitalistroadster 21:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs to be cleaned up, but it is a useful list. Grue 10:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or make category. Not useful as a list, would be better as a self-maintaining category. Stifle (talk) 12:02, 3 June 2006 (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.