Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gamelan ensembles in the United States


 * 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. Tone 16:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

List of gamelan ensembles in the United States

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

Similar to Articles for deletion/List of Chinese music ensembles in the United States, this article also does not contain any proper references, does not establish any notability, and seems to be a directory of various ensembles around the country. Probably WP:LISTCRUFT too (as pointed out by an editor on the similar AFD). The references section at the bottom of the article says that it is "based on a directory", which is a blatant violation of WP:NOTDIR.  Eugene2x► talk 20:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete = This is just a big list of external links and fails the guidelines in Stand-alone lists. Only one ensemble, Gamelan Sekar Jaya, has a Wikipedia article, and even that is unreferenced.  There is in any case already an article, Gamelan outside Indonesia, which contains much of the information in this list.  Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: insufficient independent 3rd part coverage, WP:LINKFARM, WP:LISTCRUFT. JamesBurns (talk) 04:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep --Mr Accountable (talk) 16:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And your reason...?  Eugene2x► talk 19:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep This list started from information from the American Gamelan Institute, which is a reliable source. There is a gray area between lists and directories, and Wikipedia would be well served by pushing the boundary a little towards the directory side.  This list is a good example of that gray area that should be kept.  Most of the information can be easily verified by following the links to the organizations listed.  There has NEVER been a challenge to the veracity of the information on this list.  There is a logical disconnect with the idea that everything on a list has to have a noteworthy wikipedia article associated to it.  Several of the organizations listed could merit an article of their own, probably a few never will.  But why say that lists should not be comprehensive because only some of the entries are notable?  The topic covered itself is notable, so why not have a comprehensive list? -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 03:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The topic may be notable, but not any of the ensembles, save for maybe one or two. As for AGI, it is a questionable source at best and I have not seen any references to it in the article. Additionally, why is the article so specific? List of gamelan ensembles in the United States? That seems to be overly specific, which causes the list to essentially become a directory of sorts.  Eugene2x► talk 19:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The list is meant to be comprehensive, and if it were to cover more than the US it would be way too long. It was my hope to create more of these for the rest of the world.  I've started on the UK (in my user space).  (I wonder why I bother trying sometimes.)  Sources are added to keep articles reliable, and help us remove any information that is questionable.  There is still no comments that say that the information is lacking in veracity. If a group has a website, and is listed at the AGI site, do you really believe that we need more sources to confirm its existence? --&#x2611; Sam uelWantman 01:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not the problem of confirming its existence; that's pretty easy. However, we need many more sources to deem whether or not every ensemble deserves to be listed. That's a big problem in this article, especially since there are only some sporadic resources on the web that point to the ensemble. Google searches only give 10 results for each on average, and that's including Wikipedia and the groups' own webpages. And again, AGI is a source that I don't deem very reliable.  Eugene2x► talk 02:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "we need many more sources to deem whether or not every ensemble deserves to be listed". The idea is to list EVERY ensemble in the US.  I believe it does.  I am making no claims on each groups notability, only that they can be confirmed to exist.  If they exist they are listed.  What is the problem? Why do you think AGI is not reliable?  They are not the best at updating their site, but the information listed is reliable.  -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 02:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So you are basically saying that this list should be a directory. This in itself warrants a deletion. It does not matter as much whether AGI is reliable or not, but the fact that it is merely a single source and at the very best a directory (the site even claims so). Lists still have to comply with policies and guidelines such as WP:N and WP:RS. Additionally see WP:BAND. As far as I'm concerned none of them pass any of those requirements.  Eugene2x► talk 05:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What I see is a gray area between lists and directories, and I am trying to push back against the deletion of verifiable material that is in keeping with the pillars of Wikipedia and valuable to an academic community. This pages are being threatened because of the application of GUIDELINES as if they are hard and fast laws. This page has existed without ANY objection until it became a battleground between editors fighting a battle that has nothing to do with this page.  Wikipedia would be well served by focusing deletion efforts on pages that are truly problematic. Guidelines need to be interpreted thoughfully. -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 09:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the reason that the article was left alone is because nobody else had looked at it. Just think from an encyclopedia point of view; of what use is this article? It's essentially a copy of the directory found in AGI minus the addresses and phone numbers. Why do we need to borderline on having a directory in the first place? And although guidelines should be treated with occasional exceptions, this article violates numerous aspects of policies and guidelines. As such, WP:IAR does not apply here. So until at least several of the ensembles even become close to notable and there are a few more reliable sources for each and every ensemble listed, there is little reason to keep this article around.  Eugene2x► talk 17:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: Article looked like advertising. 207.233.65.6 (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Individual items within a list do not need to satisfy notability. See the featured List of Meerkat Manor meerkats and List of English words containing Q not followed by U for example. This list currently provides relevant encyclopedic information on the diversity and popularity of certain instruments/forms/repertoires, and it still has room for growth. The external links do need to be moved out of the main text and into a "Notes" section though. [Done]. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What encyclopedic information? At best this is just a copied directory from the AGI website. Do clarify, as I do not see the purpose of such an article. Lists are still articles and WP:N still applies. The other lists document rather basic ideas that need few references or notability, so your comparison does not make much sense.
 * "[G]amelan ensembles are distinguished by their collection of instruments and use of voice, tunings, repertoire, style, and cultural context", which we help to elucidate by having a list. In the future, hopefully the article will be converted into a table format to allow those insights to be more easily gleaned. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Additionally, while the notability guideline is less stringent with lists, the problem I see is that absolutely none of the ensembles listed are notable. The lists you mentioned at least have a majority of notable content, but I can't say the same about the gamelan ensemble list.  Eugene2x► talk 20:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * None of the meerkats are notable enough to have a separate article. There are many lists which are in the same position. The rest is a matter of philosophical difference: Eventualism got Wikipedia to where it is today, and is why people like it - it's an open, honest, and patient attitude towards editing, suitable for everything except BLPs. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Eugene2x says "the problem I see is that absolutely none of the ensembles listed are notable". This is not so.  Eugene, do you know anything about this subject?  Just because there aren't yet articles about the notable ensembles does not mean they are not notable.  I think it would be quite easy to show notability for many of these groups. The reason I made this list was to encourage the creation of some of those articles.  Without this list, their creation would later be challenged with the ironic rationale that they were orphans!  It seemed to me better to have the list than to have the Gamelan outside Indonesia article become filled with this information. -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 20:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Then please tell me how they are notable. There are no sources, an average of 10 hits on Google including Wikipedia and AGI, and basically a directory of cruft. Are we supposed to keep this article for the next 20 years or so, just waiting for the ensembles to become popular? This list can be recreated at a later date, but certainly not now, seeing how it is based on a directory. The comments on the previous similar AfD I mentioned adequately describe the article's shape.  GraYoshi2x► talk 00:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: an extensive list which would probably better served as a category. It's become a linkfarm and a directory. A-Kartoffel (talk) 09:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: per WP:LINKFARM. Article was created from another directory and has been maintained to be an updated version of that directory. --Ronz (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:LINKFARM does not apply - this is not a MERE collection of external links.
 * Official sites are counted as reliable sources for non-controversial information (see Reliable_sources).
 * Not all items need to be notable.
 * See Featured list examples to get an idea of what we accept: Willowtip Records discography, List of Soul Eater chapters, List of unmade Doctor Who serials and films, List of Final Fantasy compilation albums, etc -- Quiddity (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * How many times do I have to say it? Featured lists obviously don't look like blatant directories with some information about them tacked on, and they also look very different from the current state of this article. You're comparing apples and oranges. So let's say there's an article comprised of only external links. Then we tack on a few tidbits of information. It's no longer a mere (in the literal sense) collection of information, right? Yet it's still a WP:LINKFARM. Your argument doesn't make any sense and is rather weak to say the least. Analyzing words according to their strictest dictionary definitions and finding loopholes won't do anything to change how the policy or guideline should be interpreted.  GraYoshi2x► talk 00:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as yet another indiscriminate list. The sources are not third party and violates DIRECTORY and WP:NOTGUIDE; the list itself is even credited as coming from a directory! A category would be relevant here as categories do not need the in-depth encyclopedic coverage that lists do.  Them  From  Space  01:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, wikipedia is not a directory. Would be better served as a category. TheClashFan (talk) 01:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Individual items need not be notable, when the subject is. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 15:57, 12 April 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.