Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of multi-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 no consensus. Sandstein 19:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of multi-instrumentalists[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Is this a necessary or useful list? I think the majority of notable musicians have had some experience of playing more than one instrument. This list would get out of control or be wildly incomplete. Deleted in 2007 at AfD. Boleyn (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Please follow through on your research: I have already addressed this at both Talk:List of multi-instrumentalists and Talk:Multi-instrumentalist. Yes, there is a definitional issue: read the very first sentence of Multi-instrumentalist.

As much as I detest fanboy lists, deleting List of multi-instrumentalists certainly means that not only should this list also be forever removed from the article that spawned it, but that even more useless List pages are overdue for removal — compare List of guitarists. (Personally, I could do with ending List of redheads.)
Weeb Dingle (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 17:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 17:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 17:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - User:Weeb Dingle: Avoid the other stuff exists argument. If someone decides to nominate List of guitarists for deletion, then that can be handled when the time comes. As for this list of multi-instrumentalists, Weeb (above) has only referenced his/her own talk page comments on the matter, which received no response from anyone else. This list, called a "hairball" by Weeb, was spun off from the previously overloaded Multi-instrumentalist and hence the new list article. Weeb's attitude toward this matter is a bit strange... first complaining about how the list was fancruft clogging up that other page, then reluctantly spinning it off into a new list article, but now musing that it should be kept only because other stupid list articles exist. Weeb has actually made a very good argument that the whole thing could have just been removed from Multi-instrumentalist instead of spinning it off into the new list article. But the presence of List of guitarists etc. is irrelevant for the time being. If Weeb feels that my assessment of the situation is correct, I might enter a Delete vote. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response — as you've correctly surmised, I am not a fan of lists. I will even grant that perhaps I have simply been reading the wrong articles (that is, articles that merely happen to contain particularly egregious examples). However, lists ARE a fact of life on Wikipedia. IMO, what is needed is a simple, concise set of rules to control list proliferation. If such exists here somewhere, I will gratefully accept its authority.

If this list doesn't deserve to live independently, it appears reasonable to me that it isn't much more deserving to overwhelm an otherwise acceptable article.

It's my opinion as well that, properly curated, List of multi-instrumentalists has some actual purpose (informational, scholarly, whatever), compared to random heaps like List of guitarists, which really ought to be left as a Category — perhaps that would be a more generally acceptable fate for this data?

If there's enough active interest in ashcanning the page under discussion, it certainly won't affect my life (nor, I suspect, that of anyone except the omnipresent fans who are driven to share trivia about their hero-of-the-moment). But I would certainly like to see deletion handled in a replicable manner, allowing application to other lists, in hopes of stemming nonsense like List of Harley-Davidson owners or List of green-eyed actors, seeing as we've already got List of musicians who play left-handed.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you are in search of new rules about preventing list proliferation and (possibly) deleting lists en-masse if they share the same weaknesses. Not sure where the best place to discuss that would be, but you might want to start at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists. By the way, I agree with you on how Categories are better in some cases. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, likely incomplete and unnecessary list, previously deleted. No prejudice against re-creating this list for only top-50 or top-100 artists worldwide or in the USA, but as is, it's messy, way too long and has no purpose. Redditaddict69 ^{(click here if I screwed up stuff again)} ^(edits) 09:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I commented above and was waiting for some new interpretations to come along. I agree with the last voter's reasoning, in that this list would be perpetually incomplete and would get uncomfortably close to the WP:INDISCRIMINATE standard. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (this may be more appropriate for the talkpage), i had a look at this page expecting to see a list of musicians stating the instruments that they are known for/proficient in, instead it is just a list of names, that is not very useful, also as the voice is an instrument it could be argued that anybody who sings and plays an instrument is a multi-instrumentalist. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ps. wheres Bob Dylan? Coolabahapple (talk) 00:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much the same reasoning as the delete votes so far. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being Wikipedia, he is waiting for whomever notices his absence to WP:SOFIXIT. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

me bad, done:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 01:52, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not seeing any real reason for deletion here. A multi-instrumentalist is not a musician that picks up another instrument once in a while. As we say in our article on the topic, it's a person with a professional level of proficiency in two or more instruments. An inclusion criteria would thus be easy to articulate (e.g. "notable musicians notable for a professional level of proficiency in two or more instruments," possibly requiring sources calling them a "multi-instrumentalist"). It's also a notable topic for a list, having received more than enough coverage (though it doesn't look like notability has been challenged). Being incomplete is explicitly not a valid reason for deletion, nor is being perpetually incomplete. We rarely do complete lists; we do encyclopedic lists. Every list of notable examples (including most musician-related lists) is going to be incomplete because they're not supposed to be complete. They're supposed to include what's encompassed by our inclusion criteria (typically WP:CSC). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW there's more referencing work to do, but I've added a few just for the sake of having some. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:35, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rhododendrites. Satisfies LISTN. No valid argument for deletion. James500 (talk) 06:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Multi-instrumentalists. The article actually has potential to be expanded per the existent subcategories. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 22 August 2018 (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.