Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of crooners


 * 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 09:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

List of crooners

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This page should be deleted for a couple of reasons. It is not needed. The main article Crooner gives the names of the important people in the history of crooning. There is also a category "Crooners" for the rest. Besides that the article is utterly unsourced. Nor could it ever be sourced. The whole concept of a crooner is so vague and subjective that once you get beyond the few leading ones, Bing Crosby etc., there is no way to prove someone is or is not a crooner. Even if a "reliable source" says someone is one that is still just one person's opinion. Especially glaring to me was the inclusion of Bob Dylan on the list. I have no way to know if this is a joke or not, but I don't think anyone (despite Dylan's great importance as a performer and songwriter) would call his singing bel canto. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Superfluous due to the Category. Also, not a good thing to have a list about.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 03:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Although not every genre of music on Wikipedia has cleaned up list/category repetition, no need to be repetitive here. Category suffices.--Junius49 (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The nomination's contention that we may not talk of crooners is blatant prejudice against a notable genre of music which dominated the first half of the 20th century. Here are thousands of scholarly sources which show that we will have no difficulty sourcing entries if this seems needed.  The other comments that a category supersedes this list take a contrary position in that they assume that we may have an equivalent valid category.  But categories can't be given citations like list entries can and so those comments are nonsensical especially as WP:CLS tells us clearly that lists are not superseded by categories. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I (the nominator) am not prejudiced against crooning, nor did I ever say that people shouldn't talk about it. In fact I went to the article Crooner to find out more about it.  I just don't think the list of crooners is needed since major crooners are named in the main article, and a list of minor or border-line crooners is a problem as I explained. The category is less of a problem since fans of each artist will be watching his article to see if the category is fair or not.  I doubt if fans of Bob Dylan or Iggy Pop are even aware of the "List of crooners." Steve Dufour (talk) 02:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fans, eh? The trouble that Bob Dylan has many fans who all want a piece of him and so we see that he is on the List of Lithuanians while being in the category category:Turkish Americans.  With no sources for any of this, of course.  I quite like him myself and so have added a missing category - this is a game that anyone can play. But, anyway, what do you think of the List of crooners now that every entry is sourced (and Bob Dylan isn't on it)? Colonel Warden (talk) 06:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I like your changes to the list. However it now should be merged with Crooner since all the info it contains is important to that article. (BTW Crooner needs help too. If the two articles were merged it would make one good article.) Steve Dufour (talk) 02:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I've done a little work on the list, adding a good source for Rudy Vallee and Al Bowly who were indisputable crooners. Bob Dylan's article doesn't mention the word crooner and there don't seem to be similar sources for him.  So, I just took him out.  So, how hard is that? Just check the sources and edit accordingly.  Sheesh.  Colonel Warden (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete per nomination. And "blatant prejudice"? Please. --Calton | Talk 02:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see List of popular music performers and WP:RECENTISM. This is a clear musical style recognised by thousands of sources and about which entire books have been written.  If we are to cover music at all then this style qualifies. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Per WP:STAND a list should present an unambiguous statement of membership criteria.  This one doesn't.  ReverendWayne (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes it does - it says that the list is composed of crooners. WP:STAND goes on to say, "In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed, list definitions should be based on reliable sources.".  So, all we have to do is knock the list down to the entries based upon reliable sources.  Done.  Colonel Warden (talk) 06:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * But what do those reliable sources need to say? To be included, do we merely need to find that a reliable source says that somewhere in a long career, that person crooned?  Or are we listing people who are known primarily as crooners?  That's where the criterion is still ambiguous.  I can find reliable sources that refer to Iggy Pop as crooning, but is that enough to include him on a list of crooners?  ReverendWayne (talk) 14:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. ambiguous criteria depends on someones opinion of the artists style and just labelling it as such. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, of course policy would say "delete the category and keep the list", but why not go for the worst possible option? Meconion (talk) 10:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This a a major musical genre, and there are plenty of reliable sources that can be used to source who goes on the list. Just because some editors don't agree with what the reliable sources say (why not Iggy Pop? I've seen him crooning myself) it doesn't mean that we shouldn't have an article. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The term is used in two senses. Looking at our Crooner article, by the primary definition a crooner is a male singer of standards.  The same article goes on to discuss crooning as a technique or style of singing, and as it currently stands the list article is based on that definition.  Both senses of the word are entirely valid, but an editor looking to expand the list will find sources that say a singer croons, or is a crooner, and it won't always be clear what definition the source is using.  I'm not opposed to a list of crooners, if we could make it easier for editors to understand just who belongs on the list, i.e. what the reliable source needs to say about that singer.  ReverendWayne (talk) 19:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Whether a particular person belongs, is discussable in any individual case--usually, the criterion is that it is supported by he article. Categories and lists are complementary, and there is no reason not to have both. Lists have the particular advantage of providing some information about the material in which they appear, thus facilitating identification and browsing.  Browsing is a key function of an encyclopedia. As a general rule, for topics like this, if there is a category, there should be a list. DGG (talk) 01:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Crooners. 'List' gives 'Crooners' examples for clarification that is obviously needed; 'Crooners' gives description to the list. Anarchangel (talk) 04:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge to Crooners. The deletion arguments make no sense - the topic of crooners is notable, we're agreed? And there are notable crooners with articles on Wikipedia, right? We know that, as we've got a category for them; we must be able to define who a crooner is, so it isn't indiscriminate - we use the descriptions given by reliable sources. If there's a content dispute, we resolve it, we don't delete whole articles. And the existence of a category doesn't preclude the existence of a list. So what argument is left for deletion, other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Fences  &amp;  Windows  02:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per the Colonel. Failing that Merge as suggested by F&Ws. Crafty (talk) 02:48, 19 July 2009 (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.