Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of blues rock performers

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 Procedural close. There is no argument for deletion, the pages have been marked for merger for years with no real opposition. J04n(talk page) 16:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of blues rock performers[edit]

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

WP:CONTENTFORK of List of blues rock musicians. Although List of blues rock performers has more substance, both articles can be renamed to list of blues rock artists (and List of blues rock musicians is a broader name). Both have been proposed to be merged together, and List of blues rock performers has been tagged with the WP:OR warning. Both articles are entirely unsourced. List of blues rock performers fails WP:N. Curb Chain (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination is kind of all over the place, as it seems you just want them merged because they are duplicates, but you raise a lot of irrelevant criticism. Blues rock is a recognized, notable genre, and there are plenty of notable musicians whose work has verifiably been characterized as such, so notability is not an issue (and I really don't understand why you said just one of the duplicative lists is not notable). And whether either list presently contains OR or currently does not have sources is irrelevant as those are cleanup issues not deletion issues, when the subject and core content are verifiable.
So the only problem as I see it is that there are two lists of redundant scope, so neither should be deleted, instead one should be merged into the other. As for whether "musicians" or "artists" is a better name for the list (either is better than "performers"), that renaming concern is also not an AFD issue, though I note that both are commonly used judging from the contents of Category:Lists of musicians by genre. postdlf (talk) 01:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 00:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - can be improved or possibly merged by I see no case for deletion FlatOut 12:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The only reason to keep both this and List of blues rock musicians is that one is indexed by name and the other by decade. I don't know the relevant Wikipedia policy. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think then we should have one article, indexed by decade, by~~but~~ alphabetized within each decade. Otherwise, both pages are WP:CONTENTFORKS of one another.Curb Chain (talk) 01:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ghettoizes blues-rock performers in much the same way that, oh, I don't know, a category on Women Novelists might ghettoize female writers. Qworty (talk) 00:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen some half-baked, WP:POINTY AfD entries in my day, but that takes the prize. If this is how you plan to act, kindly remove yourself to some other topic area please. Tarc (talk) 01:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously. One of the most absurd non-rationales to cross AfD in the last year. The closing administrator would do well to ignore this childish temper tantrum. Carrite (talk) 03:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - and discuss in the appropriate article talk page. As the two articles have been edited independently over the years, any merger will necessitate one of these titles to eventually be a redirect to the other per licensing concerns. Deletion was never a viable option here, so honestly this was a rather ill-advised AfD filing. Tarc (talk) 01:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Tarc. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. May I suggest that suggesting a merge with {{merge to}} and {{merge from}} may be a better avenue than AfD for future proposals of this sort. — Scott • talk 10:12, 9 May 2013 (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.