Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Carnatic instrumentalists (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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Carnatic instrumentalists[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, orphaned, spammy. Trimming to the notable entries would make it too short to qualify as a list. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question I counted fifty-eight blue links for individuals on that list, and even some featured lists (e.g. List of counties in Wyoming) have substantially fewer entries than that. Do you mean that many of the fifty-eight aren't notable, or that they should be trimmed from this for issues unrelated to notability, or do you simply mean something completely different? Nyttend (talk) 02:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Might need editing/referencing, but it's a legitimate subject for a page, and there's no reason why it couldn't be fully referenced. What grounds are there for saying it would be too short if trimmed to notable names? --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep , list has clear scope. If it gets too unwieldy it might be best split by instrument, but there isn't really a valid reason to delete. pablo 16:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This was closed by a non-admin as "keep", but I have undone this and relisted the discussion per WP:NACD. Three opinions split 2:1 are insufficient to determine consensus one way or the other. Sandstein 20:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Decent notable subject for a list and this list contains a good spread of blue-linked names across the instrument headings. Most such lists attract spam addtions but that can be dealt with by normal editing. AllyD (talk) 20:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - contains enough notable people and good spread across all instruments. --VasuVR (talk, contribs) 03:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Agree with Vasu, contains enough notable musicians. Will try to link this article to few more articles. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 17:10, 28 March 2012 (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.