Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of session musicians

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. If anyone needs userified content, let me know. — Scientizzle 00:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of session musicians[edit]

That an individual session musician is notable is fine. But this type of list of "all the notable session musicians under the sun" is unworkable, unmaintainable and thus becomes no use at all as an alternative navigation route into session Musicians. Usually I support both a list and a category because each has a different value to the WP user, but here I have to suggest that only a category is workable and the list is not. The list, while a lot of hard work for the originator, is a quantity of indiscriminate information. It cannot avoid being one. I think the idea was great, but I cannot see how this idea can be implemented in an encyclopaedic manner. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nom almost completely. This list is nearly infinite in its scope. Shadowjams (talk) 23:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allow some time to let it improve. I just created this article to get this admittedly unreferenced and random list out of the session musicians article. I agree that as it stands, it is weak. But it can be improved. Timtrent stated that this idea might not be able to be workable or encyclopaedic. I think it could move in that direction if we add some standards..like each name needs a reputable source (music encyclopedia) indicating that the person is a session musician. Then we could add another standard, such as "must have performed on at least XXX major label albums" or something, to screen out minor session musicians. As well, the list could have more categorizing, such as by era and by genre. Plus screen out the minor, little-known people. I say give the list a chance to improve. It just started its life as a stand-alone article! :) OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How much time is enough? This list has been part of Session musician for a substantial time and all that's happened is that it has become more and more unwieldy. AfD runs for 5 days unless snowballed. Even if every member of the list is referenced the whole thing remains totally unworkable. Unless, of course, you are a miracle worker. Believe me, if you can work miracles then great, but I cannot see how this can possibly be made into a comprehensive and encyclopaedic list. This is a place for categories I'm afraid, not lists. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - impossibly wide scope. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hopelessly unmaintainable, any potential criteria for inclusion would be arbitrary. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If everyone included on the list have Wikipedia articles, and are notable, I don't see why having a list of them is a bad thing. It would be, by definition, limited to those musicians who are notable, which means that it wouldn't be an infinite, unmaintainable list. I'm not sure why this is any different than other lists of notable people by vocation. If we delete this, then we should delete other lists of people by vocation that happen to be very long. In my opinion, the fact that there are a great many notable session musicians isn't a good enough reason to delete the list. Clean it up, make it workable, but no need to delete. As for "how much time is enough" to fix it up, Wikipedia has no deadlines. You work on articles that are not great, but notable, you don't delete them because they aren't perfect. SMSpivey (talk) 05:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this list is just way too broad in scope. Just about every musician at some time or another has sessioned on a recording. Maybe if the scope had been more specific I would vote keep but this list in its present form is unmaintainable and endless. JamesBurns (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, session musicians are inherently non-notable so there is no need to provide a way to search for a session musicians who play a particular instrument. That would be a function for a directory of musicians, presumably used by soloists looking for backup. Not our job. Benefix (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Give it a chance per User:OnBeyondZebrax. To TenPoundHammer: relying on reliable sources to describe them as session musicians would hardly be arbitrary. Brownsnout spookfish (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:SALAT this is "too general or too broad in scope". Bongomatic 05:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Right on, dude. Even though the general page has already been sectioned into categories per WP:SALAT, session musicians are inherently non-notable so there is no reason to provide this directory-style organization. Benefix (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too many millions to list (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 23:50, 2 February 2009 (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.