Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of drum makes


 * 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The result was   Speedy Keep, Withdrawn by nominator. Safiel (talk) 21:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

List of drum makes

 * – ( View AfD View log )

As I propose this AfD, I am not hell bent on having this article deleted, but as I reviewed it, I was wondering "Do we need this list?" There are existing lists on Guitars and Flutes that have evidently never been PROD'ed or AfD'd, but in their cases, at least some of the companies on the list had separate articles, which is not the case with this article. There does not seem to be an encyclopedic point or purpose with this list. Again not hell bent on deleting this, but I think a discussion is warranted. Safiel (talk) 04:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The subject seems clearly notable - just think of all the reviews in publications like Drum Magazine. Also, some of the companies listed are also clearly notable, e.g. Yamaha Drums. However, at the moment it looks like it fails WP:DIRECTORY. I think the way to fix this should be to add prose, rather than deletion.  — Mr. Stradivarius  ♫ 05:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia includes lots of lists - some of which are far more specialised than this:- see List of timpani manufacturers or List of marimba manufacturers. It states it is a list, so the only prose neede would be a one or 2 line introduction - it does need Wikifying - with internal links, removal of random use of CAPITALS, etc. Arjayay (talk) 08:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Userfy with the instruction that it is to be reduced to those makes which already have articles here. &mdash; RHaworth 09:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagree with the suggestion that the list should only include makers who already have an article. This is not a requirement on other lists e.g. List of timpani manufacturers or List of marimba manufacturers.  Happy to agree that makers who do not have already an article need a WP:RS Arjayay (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note This is a very new article, and it has actually gone a long way in a very short period of time.  I agree with your sentiment, but there actually already IS a source for the complete list at the bottom of the page.  Part of the problem may be that this AFD was started just 5 hours after the article was created.  I am assuming good faith on the AFD, I just think the nom is mistaken in his assumption.  The nom admits in the actual nomination that he isn't sure "if we need this", which technically, isn't a valid reason to start an AFD to begin with.  The basic premise of the nom is to just test the waters, which again, is not the best reasons to nominate for AFD.  Good faith, absolutely, but not necessarily the best reasons to nom.  The article is actually moving along and getting improved at a rate much faster than the majority of articles on Wikipedia.  I tagged it one minute after creation (refs) which was promptly fixed.  Seriously, this is a huge list, so I'm not disappointed with the effort that has been put into it so far.   Dennis Brown (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep I've been tagging and following it as it has developed, and it is moving along fine. This is a very reasonable use of lists, it is being actively sourced, and the subject matter is perfectly notable.  And there is no criteria that requires that the list contain only items that have articles here.  To the contrary, it wouldn't make much sense at all as clearly there are many other articles that need creating.  As long as the list is properly sourced, this would be draconian.  There is no WP:DEADLINE, and it can be improved over time.  Dennis Brown (talk) 11:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Withdrawal by Nominator I am going to withdraw this nomination, as clearly the consensus will be for keep. I was kind of hesitating to nominate it in the first place, as can probably be inferred from my remarks in my original nomination. Anyhow, I will go ahead and close this. Safiel (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2011 (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.