Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States musicians (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: There is a clear consensus to categorise and delete here - but how exactly to close this AfD is a bit vexing. It's not clear that the categorisation is complete. Basically, I see two options:
 * 1) Keep all the articles until it's confirmed that they've been categorised, then... um... well, god knows. WP:PROD them? Except, of course, that any article which has been nominated for deletion before cannot be prodded. Ignore all rules and speedy them? God help us, another 100-article AfD? I think there's a high chance they'd just be forgotten about and hang around for months.
 * 2) Or I can delete them all now, and if any of these lists have not been fully categorised and someone wants to complete the work, they can contact me and I'll restore them to userspace.

I'm going with 2, especially given that no-one's objected to Dr Zak's assertion "delete, categories exist" below, despite this AfD hanging around for several extra days. --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: This AfD will take a while to close, and I may be interrupted before finishing - if you notice any of these lists or links to them still hanging around, please do not contact me to say "hey, you didn't delete x" until tomorrow (Tuesday 18th July). --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

List of United States musicians
This list and the sublists linked from it were originally deleted after their first AfD. However, due to the absence of AfD tags on all the sublists during the course of AfD 1, a deletion review has found it necessary to undelete and relist all deleted pages.

Pages nominated for deletion are: List of bands from California, List of United States musicians, List of Alabama musicians, List of Alaska musicians, List of California musicians, List of Delaware musicians, List of Connecticut musicians, List of Florida musicians, List of Idaho musicians, List of Illinois musicians, List of Iowa musicians, List of Louisiana musicians, List of Maryland musicians, List of Massachusetts musicians, List of Michigan musicians, List of Missouri musicians, List of Nevada musicians, List of New Jersey musicians, List of New Mexico musicians, List of New York musicians, List of Pennsylvania musicians, List of Washington musicians, List of Wisconsin musicians, List of bands from Alaska, List of bands from Arizona, List of bands from Arkansas, List of bands from Connecticut, List of bands from Colorado, List of bands from Florida, List of bands from Georgia, List of bands from Hawaii, List of bands from Idaho, List of bands from Iowa, List of bands from Indiana, List of bands from Kansas, List of bands from Illinois, List of bands from Kentucky, List of bands from Louisiana, List of bands from Maryland, List of bands from Massachusetts, List of bands from Maine, List of bands from Michigan, List of bands from Minnesota, List of bands from Missouri, List of bands from Mississippi, List of bands from Montana, List of bands from Nebraska, List of bands from Nevada, List of bands from New Hampshire, List of bands from New Jersey, List of bands from New Mexico, List of bands from New York, List of bands from North Carolina, List of bands from North Dakota, List of bands from Ohio, List of bands from Oklahoma, List of bands from Oregon, List of bands from Pennsylvania, List of bands from Rhode Island, List of bands from South Carolina, List of bands from South Dakota, List of bands from Tennessee, List of bands from Utah, List of bands from Vermont, List of bands from Texas, List of bands from Virginia, List of bands from West Virginia, List of bands from Wisconsin, List of bands from Wyoming, List of bands from Washington, and List of Georgia musicians.

Procedural nomination. No opinion. The original nomination follows. --Kimchi.sg 12:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

''None of the musicians listed here are notable for being from the United States; many are not even notable. This is the beginning of an attempt to change all of these lists into categories. There are already categories for many of these lists: for example, there is a list of bands from California and a Category:California musicians. This is redundant and, since the categories are more appropriate, the lists should be deleted. --Stellis 21:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)''


 * Support - In other words, do what's necessary to convert these lists into categories, per Stellis. Tevildo 12:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wholeheartedly support. Hooray for the unheralded, unappreciated "janitors" of Wikipedia! Thanks! Captainktainer * Talk 12:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support deletion and conversion to categories. However this looks like a task for a Bot or someone with a week to spare --Peripitus (Talk) 12:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete I was involved in maintaining both of the Wisconsin articles on this list due to my involvement in WikiProject Wisconsin. I vote weak delete because the Wisconsin articles were frequently "vandalized" by anons adding red links to bands and musicians without asserting their notability. The articles were too hard to maintain too. I think that categories are a better route, because notability is automatic (or else the article will eventually be nominated on AfD). The problem is that the categories don't allow for a list of notable artists/bands to be added later.  These lists HAVE to be converted into categories so the data is not lost.  Hopefully a bot can do that task. --Royalbroil 14:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yup, categorise per nom. This is exactly what categories do well. As for making lists of notable artists/bands to add later, that's what project pages are for! &mdash; Haeleth Talk 15:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Categorise as per nom. doktorb wordsdeeds 16:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete & Categorize -- definitely a better way to go, as it decreases the amount of maintenance -- MrDolomite | Talk 16:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep although I have worked on some, I do believe the lists are useful. You can make almost any list into a category but I don't believe that would be best for wikipedia. List of architects could easily be a category but does well as a list. Maybe what would be best is deleting red linked bands as they aren't notable to even have a page yet, leaving bands that are noticible enough to have there own page. Dark jedi requiem 17:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and recategorize. -- Big  top  ( tk | cb | em | ea ) 17:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support: Yeah, I say make categories for all the pages.  ren0  talk 17:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Categorize, agree with above and per original AfD. —Centrx→talk &bull; 20:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all as useful lists. Capitalistroadster 20:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow. Delete all and recategorize, categories would work much better here. --Core des at' talk. o.o;; 00:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete All and Categorize per above. Nacon kantari  02:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Categorize all, then delete. Not otherwise. &mdash; RJH (talk) 02:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Categorize all as needed, and delete, in agreement with the apparent consensus above. Barno 03:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I find it particularly useful when state lists are broken down by city, such as that of List of bands from Ohio. I don't think the sub-categorization would be as clean using categories.  And as far as red links go, while a blue link may indicate notability, I don't feel a red link necessarily means non-notability.  In fact, it may encourage people to create a new article for a notable band.  Hoof Hearted 15:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Categorize all and delete, I actually stumbled on this looking for the category for Massachusetts musicians, and wondered "Why does this exist when a category would do the work?" And wouldn't you know, the AfD notice was there waiting for me! Categories do work much better in these cases, and if a city is lucky enough to have multiple significant musicians heralding from it, a new category for "Musicians from CityXXX" wouldn't bother me, either. I would encourage moving even the redlinked subjects for now; let's deal with their presence on those lists another time. HumbleGod 18:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What am I, on crack? Forget that part about "moving" the redlinks to categories. Sheesh. HumbleGod 02:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Categorize all and delete Organization is a good thing. This will pay dividends in reduced maintenance. -- Scientizzle 19:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Support for Categorize and delete. (I take it this will mean that anything that any links to the articles will be fixed as well?) I was helping maintain the List of bands from Oregon, and think lists are handy, but understand the reasons for the nomination. No loss of data (except for redlinks of dubious value) would be good. Thanks for tagging this and opening it up for debate--as a fairly new user, the disappearance of the article kept me puzzled for a few days until I learned to check the deletion log...thus, if deleted, it will be necessary to tag/protect/redirect/whatever the article so it doesn't get recreated endlessly. Katr67 23:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Conditional delete This information should be categorized, but I hate to see articles deleted before categories have been created. I suggest deleting them after a reasonable amount of time has been given to interested parties to create them. A week, at least. -Freekee 01:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I suggest that if anyone does verify that every artist in a state is categorized properly, they make a note in the article's Talk page. I've done this for Alabama and Oregon, so feel free to follow that format. HumbleGod 03:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Support - Redlinks are the problem. fearisstrong 20:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Categorize and delete...I would have said keep a few days ago, but now I agree with Katr67's and Royalbroil's arguments (see above). There are a lot of anonymous editors posting vanity entries on these lists, from what I've seen on List of bands from Oregon, and it makes it difficult to maintain. That same list now has dubious genre categories and isn't alphabetised. This process of reaching consensus through formal nomination is a good thing, though. I like the idea of lists of (whomever) from (wherever), but all the anonymous vanity edits on these lists are annoying. -little otik 01:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. See the importance of tagging and listing all 50 + 50 = 100 article! Look how much discussion this has brought to this AFD. There are 5 "list of ... from ..." contributors representing 3 states already! This is why EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE needs to have the AFD tag applied. Contributors learned of this AFD from the tags. I'm glad to see an improvement to the AFD system! --Royalbroil 23:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Categories exist. Dr Zak 14:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per Dr Zak's brief, but all encompassing statement FancyPants 03:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Categorize and then Delete. AfD for each of these articles? The mind does not just boggle; it pops right out of the skull. Herostratus 18:40, 16 July 2006 (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.