Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Complete list of Wax Poetics featured artists


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Complete list of Wax Poetics featured artists

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I think this smacks of WP:NOTGUIDE or WP:NOTDIRECTORY. It would be like posting an article containing an index to products reviewed in Consumer Reports each issue. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Having posted this, I disagree. Wax Poetics is heralded as a legitimate research tool, not only for record collectors, but academics, and this is a way of outlining, for their convenience, what seminal musical artists have been interviewed or profiled–sometimes exclusively–for the magazine. There's no harm in this. Not to mention, Wax is the sole provider of its particular coverage: examining hip-hop through the samples used, and shedding light on the pioneering artists who have essentially created the contemporary sonic lexicon. Furthermore, Wikipedia is a site for information that people want, and I posted this in response to comments from fellow Wax readers who felt it would be an excellent resource. -Dani —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniprobably (talk • contribs) 22:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A publication like Wax Poetics would ordinarily carry this sort of information on its own website and people can reasonably be expected to seek it there. To help you out, I note that you really didn't address any of the reasons I gave in favor of deletion. Wikipedia has a detailed series of guidelines regarding inclusion of articles, two of which are referenced by the links I provided above. There are kinds of information that, granted, some people might think to find here, but various consensuses have been reached regarding WP:What Wikipedia is not. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It seemed to me like a legitimate index–something not found in-full on the Wax website–that would characterize the magazine and its scope of coverage. But I'm not an admin, so I don't really have a say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.117.157.138 (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't need to be an admin to comment here! But to be most useful, contributions to a deletion discussion should take into account how Wikipedia's policies and guidelines apply to the article at hand. Note that I'm not in anyway implying that the information on that page isn't useful, but that isn't the sole applicable criterion. Others may not agree with me on the applicability of the guidelines I cited. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: agree with nominator. WP:NOTDIRECTORY. JamesBurns (talk) 00:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete--no matter the relevance of Wax Poetics, this index does not qualify as a Wikipedia article. And if Wax's own website doesn't have it, well, they should consider making it. Drmies (talk) 02:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete he important information is already in the main article. I do not think we should be publishing magazine tables of contents--I count it as spam, because of the links to the notable subjects of the articles. DGG (talk) 04:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.