Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of contemporary classical double bass players


 * 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

List of contemporary classical double bass players

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This list seems redundant. We already have a category "Classical double-bassists", which is much easier to maintain individually than this huge, unreferenced list. Burpelson AFB (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Categories and lists are two complementary methods of organization, and they are both useful. ItThere is no policy calling for one or the other, or, indeed, preferring the one to the other. So there's no valid policy based reason for deletion.  DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - for all the reasons expressed above by DGG. See WP:PURPLIST. -- WikHead (talk) 08:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep The argument about a list being redundant to a category almost never works, although it comes up from time to time. The article isn't very well written, and there is a valid complaint raised that it is unreferenced.  Only a weak keep, because there are plenty of other problems with the article, none that can't be fixed.  I noticed that this was nominated along with list of bass guitarists, and, being musically ignorant, I assumed that double bass would be something similar, and it's nowhere close.  While a bass guitar is an important part of rock and country bands, a double bass is an important part of a symphony orchestra, and can be described by musically ignorant people like me as "it looks like a cello".  And why "contemporary" classical double bass players, as opposed to former ones?  Is someone planning to remove a name if someone announces their retirement?  Finally, although I believe that there are advantages to both lists and categories, a list that merely recites a bunch of names isn't much better than a category.  Discriminating information should be added, such as which orchestra they're associated with, in the same way that we would associate an offensive lineman with their football team. Mandsford (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, per WP:CLN, this acts as a complement to the category and can be improved with references and additional encyclopedic information for each entry, placing each individual in context for the reader.-- Beloved Freak  11:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Additional comment: I'm not entirely sure why it's contemporary players or what that means. Curerently playing? Active within a certain timescale? Still alive? Playing contemporary classical music? (although the last doesn't seem to apply from the lead). I think it would be better as List of classical double bass players, or the lead needs to make it clearer what it means by contemporary, and why that's an important distinction.-- Beloved  Freak  11:19, 13 May 2010 (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.