Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of past Jamboree in the Hills 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 delete. PhilKnight (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of past Jamboree in the Hills performers[edit]

Largely unverifiable list. Has a clear focus, but it would be very hard to source, and it doesn't really add context. it's just a monstrous laundry list of acts that have performed. (They also spelled Thrasher Shiver wrong.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 13:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Somewhat confused about the deletion rationale here. The event's site verifies the list's content; the source is already in the article. Yeah, it's a primary source, but since it is used for nothing more than the factual recap of past performers, it's acceptable under RS. The article is chronologically grouped, provides WP-links to the acts themselves, and other details of each year's event (such as who the headliner was) could be added from other, third-party RSs. Townlake (talk) 03:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LC, items 2, 3, 4, 7, and 8. Stifle (talk) 14:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Observation While I respect your opinion, I'd note that WP:LC = WP:LISTCRUFT, which is neither policy nor guideline. Besides, there's plenty of rationale for a performers-specific topic to be developed separately from the main Jamboree article. Townlake (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. This list has no meaningful content --T-rex 00:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overly broad list based on fairly trivial categorization. Neither necessary nor useful. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:19, 21 August 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.