Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of J-pop artists (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 keep. John254 00:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

List of J-pop artists
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:LIST in that it's not informative (doesn't provide more information than just the name), not navigative in a way the category isn't, and not developmental (few redlinks, and are the redlinks even relevant?). No consensus last time, most keep arguments were either WP:ILIKEIT or pertained to now-irrelevant things (Japanese script, presence of many redlinks). Punkmorten (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep & Close: AfD is POV, easily passes WP:LIST. "WP:LIST in a nutshell" is a point for point description of this article. Lists are valid compliments to categories according to the policy cited by the nominator. This list has a few red links, is pretty organized, navigable, and categorized. First AfD seems equally biased. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.   --AeronPrometheus (talk) 18:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.   --AeronPrometheus (talk) 18:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nomination rationale seems be, essentially, that the list isn't well-developed yet and doesn't yet provide enough information for context. As we all knw, Bob, it is official policy that being a stub is not a wikicrime. I'd be happier with the article if it clarified that it's a list of notable J-pop artists and had the redlinks culled. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * However that may be, we are debating this list now, reviewing it in its current state. I never said anything about being a stub or being underdeveloped, I said that it's not used or useful for development purposes. If it was a bare list of bluelinks, what would the point be? Punkmorten (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What evidence do you have that says this article is not "used"? And by what do you mean "development purposes"? I was unaware that an article had to have development merit to exist. The point of lists are just that, re-read WP:LIST, it disagrees with you. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per AeronPrometheus and his rationale. The list appears to pass WP:LIST.  Just because it's not a featured list doesn't mean that it shouldn't exist.  Also, per WP:CLS, lists and categories should not be considered in conflict with one another.  Both can exist, there's no reason to delete this is whether or not a category is made and can cover the same bases.   Red Phoenix  flame of life...protector of all... 16:48, 4 August 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.