Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of conductors


 * 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 and maintain as a category only. Stifle (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

List of conductors

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unsourced listcruft. Difficult to maintain, and duplicates Category:Conductors only with much higher maintenance.  ^ demon [omg plz]  15:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll say it's hard to maintain. Can you believe the author forgot Copper? ;p shoy  16:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete no sources, OR, unmaintainable, and also missing people like Danny Kaye... but he only did it as a hobby (presumably a semi-conductor?) EyeSerene TALK 17:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC) (I'll get me coat)
 * Delete for the reasons listed above. Nothing here that can't be better served by the Category, nor is it really necessary to have an article listing conductors, their orchestras, their dates of birth and death, etc., since there's nothing to be gained by comparing one to another.  Mandsford 18:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. Even as is, it does more than the category by indicating the other musical notability. It should be expanded to give the dates and the nationality, both of which are important in this field, and useful for browsing. Many people who like classical music compare one conductor with another as a major preoccupation. And the criteria are plain enough--the two comments just above seem not to have read them and are presumably making jokes about "conductor" as in electrical conductor--and the criteria clearly eliminate Danny Kaye as an hobbyist. DGG (talk) 22:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment OK, so it was a rather feeble joke, but illustrating a point ;) Actor Danny Kaye was an amateur conductor, and is not included. Gilbert Kaplan, another amateur conductor, is included. From the article: "Inclusion on this list does not necessariy suggest conducting was their primary occupation or talent." In other words, amateur conductors meet the inclusion criteria. This makes the article almost hopelessly broad; the title is not even "notable conductors". As with all AfD's, I did read the article carefully. You can't deny that it is a bit of a red-link farm, and totally unsourced. How is this better than the existing category? EyeSerene TALK 09:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't vote. Just trying to provide a bit of levity. shoy  14:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, my apologies--I know you did not intend as such, but levity in these discussions has occasionally been used by others as a sign of contempt for a topic thought hopelessly non-notable. But red links are very easy to delete, as are mistaken listings. The objection raised is just an editing question. DGG (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No offence taken, and the fault is really mine ;) Levity is not appropriate when discussing deleting someone's hard work, and I didn't intend it (and wouldn't use it) to denigrate anyone's contributions.
 * You make a good point (and one I fully agree with) concerning style deficiencies not being reasons for deletion. I didn't intend my 'red-link farm' comment to be taken as a deletion argument in itself, but as an indicator of a problem with the article from the perspective of verification. How can we know these people are conductors (let alone notable ones)? They have no articles, and the list is unsourced. EyeSerene TALK 18:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * perfectly good point, and the red links should be removed if articles don't get written--just as in other such lists. Anyone putting in a new one should be told to write the article first--as with other such articles. All such list require periodic maintenance. DGG (talk) 00:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. It is a unique and valuable resource, and quite a remarkable piece of work.  Where there are omissions, fix them.  Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater!  NCdave 22:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Such lists are hopeless and always will be. That's what categories are for.   Jack (Lumber) 00:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. When a list becomes this big it is better served by a category, which is self-maintaining. Crazysuit 04:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Lists of this nature do not merely duplicate categories, as they can contain red links where articles are required. (As an aside I don't understand why "red-link farm" is a bad thing, as long as most of the red-linked items would be worthy of inclusion.) It could also be expanded, as DGG suggests, to include other information not available via the category system. Espresso Addict 01:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep and improve. difficulty in maintenance shouldn't be a criterion for deletion. neither should its omissions or vague inclusions. let's enhance its utility by making it better.--emerson7 | Talk 14:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Addendum: versions of this list also exist in no fewer than a dozen other wiki languages creating a invaluable tool for crosschecking variants in spelling, duplicate articles and sourcing references. --emerson7 | Talk 18:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete this is much better handled by the category, this is virtually impossible to maintain. If kept should be renamed to List of conductors (music) to match the article and I for one was not upset at the humor (as in funny not as in physiological theory). Gotta laugh folks! Carlossuarez46 22:53, 24 September 2007 (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.