Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of composers


 * 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 04:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

List of composers
Highly incomplete list. No useful purpose not served by proper categorisation. Lots of red linked "composers" with no indication of notability. Cain Mosni 02:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete potentially infinite list. Danny Lilithborne 02:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete : Criteria too broad, making the list of little use. This is what categories are for. Rohirok 03:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. With some restructuring, this can be made useful. Alphabetical section is of little use and ought to be deleted. Rohirok 01:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - use categories. --User:Arnzy (talk • contribs) 06:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. VegaDark 06:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sorry about bucking the tide here, but I think that this list is a thing readers might want to look up, and it has links to a number of useful sublists, making this a useful parent article. In addition, the presence of redlinks in the list shows that the list is not entirely redundant with categories. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment See categories... Cain Mosni 11:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Categories are not the same as lists. WilyD 14:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Sjakkalle. Lists can show redlinks for possible additions which cats can't and lists can be sorted differently, which cats can't. So this is not redundant. - Mgm|(talk) 11:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Without the articles to indicate notability, there's no telling whether entries in the list are worthy or just cruft, so you're back to categorising existing articles which can indicate their own merit. Proper sub-categorisation negates the need for sub-sorted lists.  I actually held your position myself over the lists of male/female singers.  Since then I've come to see the other view.  Cain Mosni 12:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your statement that there is no telling which entries would warrant separate articles and which are cruft. If you Google a random redlink, you can usually determine pretty quickly if the composer is someone who ought to or could have an article. I made a random check with Vilko Avsenik and found for instance that while we don't have an article on this composer, the Slovenian has it. This could be done for most, if not all, of the listed composers. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If the list needs editing, then edit it. Don't bring it to AfD. WilyD 12:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Obvious Keep - please see Wikipedia:Lists are not the same as categories, they serve a very important function that categories can't. If the list needs editing then edit it, don't bring it to AfD.  Article is incomplete is a terrible criterion for deletion (given that it'd axe 99.5% of articles). WilyD 12:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree that lists can serve a purpose, but what purpose does this list fulfill that a category couldn't? Rohirok 14:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * List the composers which we don't yet have articles on. Sjakkalle (Check!)  14:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:LIST gives three purposes for lists 1)Information. In this case, the list gives birth and death dates for composers that the category doesn't, for instance.  2)Navigation.  Should be self explanitory, but lists are more useful for navigation than categories are.  3)Development - this list doesn't appear to be being used for development, so we'll nix that.  Overall this is still a "stub" list even though it has lots of entries, they're not developed.  Good lists or featured lists have to develop each entry, but just being a stub is not a criterion for deletion. WilyD 14:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, although maybe make it a number of separate lists (eg List of composers born in the 16th Century, List of composers born in the 17th Century etc.) to make it manageable. Yes, Categories serve something of the same function, but Lists have their place, and I think this is one of them. Batmanand | Talk 16:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Feel free - splitting up articles can be done boldly without regard for AfD (though I'd wait until we keep it formally) WilyD 17:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Actually, much of this list already seems to be split up into separate lists by genre/era. See List of Baroque composers and List of Classical era composers, for example. Why keep this general (and potentially huge) list when there are more specific (and more useful) lists elsewhere? Rohirok 17:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The general reasoning is at WP:SUMMARY - but that may imply the need for substantial restructuring/rewriting. WilyD 18:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I can see keeping this list if it were restructured much like List of musicians. I can see how that would be useful for navigation. I don't think the list in its current state is of much use at all. Rohirok 18:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it provides a navigation service nothing else does - it provides an overview of composers - it also (at least claims) to list composers not on the seperate pages because they don't compose a specific style of music - there's a lot if you dig a little. WilyD 18:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per all above Jcuk 19:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Is that strong keep per all above including Rohirok's insightful point that we already have existing lists of composers divided by era, thus rendering this particular list both redundant and confusing? Eusebeus 22:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. If it's just an alphabetical list, then it should be categorized (while the redlink comment is valid, all the redlinks should go to WP:RA anyway.  It's redundant.).  If it's sorted in some other manner, it may be useful, but that's not the case here.  ColourBurst 23:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment the list has information that the category doesn't and can't. Thus "It's redundant" is demonstratably false.  Lists contain more than just sorting.  Please see WP:LIST and Featured lists to understand how lists work. WilyD 00:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment You claim there are two things that this list serves: to create articles out of redlinks and to make redlinks, and to alphabetize the information that's in this list.  The first is redundant with the requested articles project, and the second is redundant with a category.  This current list is not under any Wikiproject right now, which means it doesn't get specialized attention, and on top of this it has severe systemic bias.  It needs a lot of work, possibly to sort it in some way other than alphabetical order, which a category already does and is better at doing.  ColourBurst 02:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, the list also provides an overview of when all these composers lived. That's something a category can't do.  Article needs work is not a criterion for deletion, but a criterion for improvement.  WilyD 03:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. Make it a valuable research tool. Categories cannot include dates, countries, genres but lists can. Also, categories don't have red links, but lists do, making them useful for people searching for an article: a red link tells them to search no further. Lists like these can make Wikipedia more valuable than any other encyclopedia. Fg2 00:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Without a breakdown by genre, era, etc., the usefulness of this list would be quite limited. I don't doubt that lists can serve a purpose not served by categories, but the point has been that this list as it was didn't serve much purpose beyond a category. But it can be made to be useful. I've restructured it somewhat after the pattern of List of musicians. I still think the alphabetical portion of the list is redundant and of little utility and should be deleted. Rohirok 01:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Article is only somewhat useful, could be better is a criterion for improvement, not deletion. WilyD 03:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. The list is "open", i.e., it is impossible to assess the number of items a priori Cinabrium 03:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Several Featured lists share this characteristic, such as Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc or List of Formula One drivers so I have to conclude List isn't closed is not a criterion for deletion. So I have to ask: To argue for a strong delete, can you advance any rational? WilyD 03:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Hello all.  The composers on the list were originally on List of uncategorized composers, which I merged into this page about a month ago.  Also, simply keeping the list as a list of lists might not hurt anything.  Just see List of classical music composers. Dafoeberezin3494 16:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems like WP:CLS should be standard reading. Dsreyn 01:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all the names, keep lists and change name of the article to "list of lists of ...". Endless lists have no value for reader, sorting out who's notable enough doesn't work well elsewhere. Pavel Vozenilek 01:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but as per Pavel Vozenilek, delete the individual names, and make this another list of lists ... would also be helpful to collect the various Categories here. --Dennette 04:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * i am changing my vote to move to category:composers,then sub categories for each genre.


 * Move --speaking as an educator who just went to this page while looking for course materials, I think categories of composers are essential, but I agree that a comprehensive list of all composers is not possible. (Do I qualify?  I wrote my college's fight song...) Truddick 04:04, 5 September 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.