Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of crooners (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

List of crooners
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This one went up before and closed as no consensus. Want to clean this up but really I would not even know where to start. The term crooner itself is very vague, fluid and meaningless. I wouldn't even know how to source this or create inclusion criteria. Someone added Christopher Cross, I think most would agree he is not a crooner, but I also would not be shocked to find some reporter somewhere once may have used the term in relation to him. I just think this is far to vague and inclusive a term to ever make a meaningful list. Ridernyc (talk) 14:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Yes, it does sound an intrinsically indefinable list criterion, unless it's simply a pejorative (any singer someone can't stand). "List of Easy Listening singers"... no, it's never going to work. Delete. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as long as it's not merged. I only created this list because editors insisted otherwise on having this list on Crooner. Garion96 (talk) 15:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I think this meets the requirements for a list. Crooner does have a specific definition, although it's a little subjective, since this isn't science and not the arts.  Merge if need be, in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. Roodog2k (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you like to suggest some realistic inclusion criteria? Simply sourcing someone referring to the as a crooner will not work in this case. I'm all for lists like this and spend my time patrolling and cleaning up many of them, in this case though I have no clue where to start. Ridernyc (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I would start with this: 1) Male 2) Singer 3) Backed by full orchestra, big band, or piano. 4) That sings songs from the Great American Songbook. I'm sure there are sources that can be used at Rolling Stone or allmusic.com or other non-primary sources when addressing whether a specific singer is a Crooner. I agree it's a bit more subjective for my taste. Roodog2k (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is a bigger mess than it looks like at first, and even that's a big mess! There's nothing like inclusion criteria. There's no firm definition of the term to base inclusion criteria from. Sometimes we get around that for these sorts of lists by demanding that each entry be appropriately cited to a reliable source assigning the description. But here, the term has both contemporary and historical use as a pejorative in parallel with its more positive connotations, and that opens a whole new set of sourcing and inclusion issues, especially given that at least some of the listed folks are still alive. I think this is an excellent example of why not every valid article which describes a category of people should necessarily have a corresponding list of such people. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Crooners are/were a legitimate style of performance, hence having a Wikipedia article crooner which mentions several crooners. The list should probably focus on the heyday of the crooner in the mid 20th century, rather than including people who were once called a crooner somewhere (possibly as abuse) but have little in common with that tradition. Similar problems exist with many artistic and musical genres, but they're not insuperable.  Whether individual people belong or not can be debated on the talk page and handled with editing (and I encourage people to edit the list).  The advantage of a Wikipedia list is that it is possible to include comments beside each name on the list to add dissenting opinions, to say if someone was only a crooner for a certain period in their career, if they denied being a crooner, etc. --Colapeninsula (talk) 23:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you volunteering to do all this work, similar things were said in the last AFD and none of it came true. Ridernyc (talk) 23:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. I don't see where this fails WP:LISTN or WP:LISTPURP or any other guidelines. The inclusion criteria can easily be settled on, I think; how about "This is a list of people who have been identified as crooners by multiple reliable sources."? These people have been covered as a group in a significant way in reliable sources, such as this book, thus meeting the LISTN criteria. The fact that the list needs significant improvement is not a proper justification for its deletion. It's not harmful in the sense that it's not an advertisement, copyvio or has BLP issues, so should simply be kept and improved over time. See WP:RUBBISH. --Batard0 (talk) 10:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * again similar promises of how easy this is were made 2 years ago. No one who is actually willing to do the work thinks it is as easy as the people who keep making these claims.  Want to put your money were your mouth is do some improvements to the article while the AFD is still open? Ridernyc (talk) 14:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOEFFORT. postdlf (talk) 19:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep as a reasonable spinoff of the Crooner article. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:57, 27 October 2012 (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.