Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Women of Rock Oral History Project interviews


 * 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 merge to Women of Rock Oral History Project. ansh 666 09:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

List of Women of Rock Oral History Project interviews

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Page which is serving less as a properly sourced encyclopedia article about the topic, and more as an WP:ELNO-violating index of offlinks to the videoclips themselves. As always, Wikipedia does not exist as a platform for creating finding aids to other websites' content -- the links in the body text of a Wikipedia article must be internal links to other Wikipedia articles, not offsite links to other websites. This is a violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and simply converting the offlinks into footnotes wouldn't actually resolve that since it would still just be a list of another website's content. Bearcat (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Related discussions:
 * Articles for deletion/List of most-followed Twitter accounts
 * Articles for deletion/List of most-followed Instagram accounts


 * Strong delete as a blatant policy violation. Wikipedia is not a web directory, and also emphatically not a web directory masquerading as a list article. If there were individual articles about notable interviews, then a list linking to those articles would be appropriate. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I would change this to 'keep' merge if the lengthy list of external links were removed and replaced with a link to a http://www.womenofrock.org/videos/ &mdash; the topic itself seems to have garnered some coverage, although not yet certain if it's enough for a stand-alone article. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect with merge after rewrite into Sophia Smith Collection. I think this topic would be a good section/sub-section there, but I agree with the comments above, a simple copy and paste would be inappropriate. South Nashua (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Oddly worded (for a list article) lead brings to mind NOTDIRECTORY.--SamHolt6 (talk) 06:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a directory or a webhost. Ajf773 (talk) 08:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding of this Wikipedia page. It is unique because this Wikipedia GLAM initiative -- Women of Rock Oral History Project -- is an oral history project versus a more typical GLAM initiative that has works and publications. The works and publications here take the form of videos. The function of this page is to establish what is an ongoing collection of oral history interviews that are key to supporting entries and establishing notability of the subject list of this GLAM initiative in support of the main entry, Women of Rock Oral History Project. This is an ongoing, living, breathing academic and scholarly project, with new entries being added on a rolling basis. The idea is that these "publications" of this initiative have the form of pre-built citations for use across the various language Wikipedias. These are dense, Wikipedia-friendly interviews full of first person narratives and detailed facts that reinforce notability of unheralded and under-recognized subjects that address gender gap and diversity (including LGBTQIA) on the encyclopedia. This information is heavily incorporated with Wikidata, so is cross-project friendly. I understand the WIKI:RULEZ and possibly discomfort this list page might generate, but I would like to address the concerns within the context of a GLAM project and see if there might be flexibility here, as the content creation potential is quite impactful. If this could be seen as a way to support this initiative in a productive, forward-thinking approach, it would be much appreciated. Again, happy to address concerns, but hopeful this is seen from the constructive manner in which it is intended. -- Erika aka 12:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Additionally, wanted to add that I have only started to update and improve content on both Wikidata and Wikipedia based on the first couple videos on this list page. Kat Arthur from Legal Weapon currently has no entry -- and should -- and with regard to Alice Bag, I have only started pulling information from her oral history into her Wikipedia page and Wikidata entry. Again, this list page is clearly in support of improving Wikipedia content. Especially in the case of Alice Bag, whose entry is in dire need of editing and reshaping, this oral history will be critical in correcting and improving -- and adding to content on the encyclopedia. There are 20 interviews digitized so far with a total of 29 in process. The project as I said is ongoing, and will address significant lapses in coverage of these notable women on Wikipedia. I also wanted to add that I was trying to avoid adding links to the main WoROHP Wiki entry next to the subjects of the collection, as it would unbalance the citations on the page, and didn't seem like it would be supported by the Wikipedia editing community, but if this list page is not viable, I could shift them there. I think this list page is a smarter, more helpful option. I see this list page as similar to a record label discography, etc., which is definitely something allowed and embraced on the encyclopedia. Just some more ideas in support of keeping this page. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 12:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point. Wikipedia isn't a repository of web links. That's a policy (a rule to which we must adhere), not just a guideline (a best practice that we should follow). Discography pages that are full of web links also get deleted; a good discography page has internal wikilinks to other Wikipedia articles. That's what this list should be. If you want a list of non-Wikipedia links, then create the list on the Women of Rock Oral History Project website and write a non-list article about it, linking to that page. A list of external links masquerading as a Wikipedia article isn't acceptable. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting perspective. I am not missing the point. I am disagreeing with the assessment and arguments being made here. I believe the rules that are being used to support deletion do not apply and further that there is a misunderstanding of the functionality of this page. This page is not simply a list of web links. This is backwards thinking in the extreme. I am not trying to harm or weaken Wikipedia. I am doing a lot of work to make a positive impact here. If that is not clear, then again I think there is a huge misunderstanding. But given my experience with this type of argument, I fear this is a brick wall that I will fail to impact. Just know this is why people stop editing or are afraid to contribute. I am trying here to be bold and add content. I don't think this is being appreciated here. There's not much I can do or say in this scenario, as there seems to be no discussion, just a rigid unmoveable agenda of No. I hope you will reconsider, but I'm not hopeful. I'm so tired of this inflexible perspective on Wikipedia. It's a real problem, En Wiki editors who take this approach. -- Erika aka BrillLyle
 * Yes, you are missing the point. Alternatives have been offered to you to be in compliance with our editorial policies and guidelines, and you have rejected them. (a) You can write a list article consisting of a list of interviews that already have their own Wikipedia articles because those interviews were deemed individually notable in their own right. Or (b) the Oral History Project can maintain their own page of links (which is the correct place for it, not on Wikipedia), and the parent article Women of Rock Oral History Project can link to it. Or (c) because the subject of interviews has received some coverage, the list of interviews could be deleted from this article, keeping the prose, and linking to the appropriate external page on the Oral History Project's page &mdash; and I'll gladly retract my 'delete' vote if that change were made. Instead, rather than "doing a lot of work to make a positive impact", you have created essentially a directory of external links disguised as a list article (which is a common black-hat SEO tactic, by the way). And finally, you still haven't offered any arguments grounded in Wikipedia policy why this article should be kept. Instead you have responded with denial of what the page actually is, and complained that your bold edits have been met with too much negativity, without realizing that's a risk we all take when being bold. Well, there's a simple cure for your complaints: Work within the community-agreed policies and guidelines, as previously suggested, or provide policy-grounded arguments for keeping the article. You haven't done either one. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I guess I am having a hard time with this argument when I see things like the following are on En Wiki and it seems to be totally fine. The WoROHP list is actually scholarly in nature, and is in support of adding content via a newly organized GLAM project. I don't see that agenda or context with these example List pages: List of WWE personnel, List of pornographic actresses by decade, List of most-followed Instagram accounts, List of common misconceptions, Lists of colors. It's all pretty random, isn't it? And to use the Be Bold thing against me is sort of ironical isn't it? Throwing WIKI:RULEZ is unhelpful. Thanks all for rising to my already low expectations of Wikipedia editors. -- BrillLyle (talk) 20:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a reason to keep an article. Each stands or falls on its own merits independent of what else may exist on Wikipedia. List of most-followed Instagram accounts is even a better candidate for deletion than the article we're discussing here (and it is now up for deletion, thank you); just because that article exists isn't a reason to include another one like it. As far as I can tell, none of those duplicate lists that have already been published outside of Wikipedia (except the Instagram thing), and all of them link to other Wikipedia articles for each list item. You haven't offered any reason why Wikipedia should duplicate a list that already exists elsewhere, for a list of items that don't even have their own individual Wikipedia articles. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. In all honesty, I don't see the issue here. This fits squarely into a long tradition of List of works in subset articles on Wikipedia, and I don't see how this is any different to The Fall discography, List of buildings designed by W. H. Weeks or National Film Registry. In my opinion, the issue regarding the external links is a red herring; I view those as embedded citation links demonstrating that the items in question are indeed included, and while using embedded links rather than a separate reference section is strongly discouraged, that's a formatting issue and not something to be addressed at AfD. &#8209; Iridescent 16:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There are two questions here: Is the list of video interviews notable? Probably, since it has had some coverage, but that question hasn't been answered definitively yet by any response here, including yours. Does the list violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY? In my view, definitely yes. It doesn't matter whether the links are inline or refspam, it's still predominantly a list of links to outside content, and this list is already maintained on another website. All of those other lists you mentioned include items that are independently notable and have their own Wikipedia articles. That is not the case here, it's just a list of external links. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Provided the list itself is notable by Wikipedia terms, I don't see any issue with including the members of it provided the list isn't unreasonably long (see List of tablets on the Memorial to Heroic Self Sacrifice for a good example of a list of names included in full despite most of the entries being unlikely ever to warrant their own entries). The primary purpose of the content of any Wikipedia article is to be useful to whoever's reading the article, and letting the reader know who's listed (and thus, whether the List of Women of Rock Oral History Project is something they want to spend any more time researching) clearly serves a useful purpose. If it's just the mess of ELs that's the issue, the whole thing could be cited to www.womenofrock.org/interviewees-1, which would still serve as a RS to verify who's listed and still provide enough of a link that a reader thinking "hey, I really want to see that interview" could navigate to it without difficulty, without including a gazillion separate links. &#8209; Iridescent 17:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per Iridescent. Note that Anachronist ("strong delete") later writes: Addendum: I would change this to 'keep' if the lengthy list of external links were removed... But that kind of content discussion should take place on the article's talk page, not as a bargaining chip in an AfD. The presence of the links is not a valid reason to delete the page. Anachronist's comment directly contradicts his/her own "strong delete" !vote. — Gpc62 (talk) 07:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. The part of the quote that you omitted expresses concerns about the notability of the topic, which has not yet been established by this discussion. I meant merge... just changed it. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge to Women of Rock Oral History Project. Can't see a compelling reason to keep this list separate from the main article. Carcharoth (talk) 12:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge – The list is short and would fit better in the main article. — JFG talk 21:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to merge into the main page but was concerned it would add too many citations to the page. The list is meant to be similar to a publications list, as the oral histories are part of her PhD thesis, and have an academic bent. Also as the interviews continue the list will expand. I know Exene Cervenka from X is just one of many that are upcoming. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 15:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The list already exists as an external page, and that's where it belongs. I don't know why that's so hard to comprehend. The number of citations in the prose is small and would be best merged into the parent article. As for the rest, it doesn't matter if the links are inline or refspam, they are still a bunch of links to primary sources, not references to coverage, which is what we need in an article. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep yes, I think this topic is notable and the videos themselves are notable as demonstrated by the existence of Women_of_Rock_Oral_History_Project_interviews. Additionally, as Iridescent notes Wikipedia has a long history of these sort of "list of" articles, and as long as the list is useful to the reader (which in this case, it is), I see no reason to delete (or merge) it. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * the point here is that the list is pretty much identical to the one that already exists at http://www.womenofrock.org/videos/ and reproducing it here adds no value. It's basically a list of external links, nothing more. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete/merge to main article as the entire list of interviewees is already located there. Moreover, the citation overhead in this article is unnecessary and the links to each individual video interview can be merged to the main article. Even better would be a link in the main article's external links to the top-level page from which all videos can be accessed. Ca2james (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist un Eins uno 01:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete- such lists do not belong on wikipedia, see Listcruft. The creator of this article needs to understand wikipedia is not a place to promote, support, or establish notability for a project. It is not an attack on the project itself, just an enforcement of rules intended to keep wikipedia neutral.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per Iridescent. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 22:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge to Women of Rock Oral History Project. No reason to keep this list as a separate article. f eminist 10:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge as suggested. no need for a separate listy. -- it will be more useful together .  DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a directory or a webhost. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 13:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete not a plausible stand-alone topic nor a valid WP:SAL; the article is very clearly a violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The page Women of Rock Oral History Project covers the topic fully without any merge being necessary. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 02:52, 11 December 2017 (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.