Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of hard rock musicians


 * 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 (non-admin closure). Since lists offer the capacity for sourcing and further information, reasonably clear consensus discusses that this article should be improved, not deleted, and that "already a category for this" is not a valid deletion rationale. WilliamH (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

List of hard rock musicians

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

Another list which is better presented at Category:Hard rock groups Moondyne 02:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete category already exists for this, as per nom.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 02:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.   —Moondyne 03:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Potatoswatter (talk) 03:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Nominator and other voters have not provided any valid reason to delete this list. The wikipedia guideline on categories and lists specifically notes that wikipedia offers several ways to group articles: categories, lists and navigational templates. Each way has advantages and disadvantages, and one or more of these ways may be appropriate in a given circumstance. These methods should not be considered to be in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others. For example, since editors differ in style, some favor building lists while others favor building categories, allowing links to be gathered in two different ways, with lists often leapfrogging categories, and vice versa. Developers of these redundant systems should not compete against each other in a destructive manner, such as by nominating the work of their competitors to be deleted because they overlap. Doing so may disrupt browsing by users who prefer the list system. Emphasis mine. --Bardin (talk) 04:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe I have provided a valid reason: A category of the same data already exists. Can you provide an argument why we would want a manually maintained list which duplicates a perfectly efficient category?  I have no objections to lists by the way, as they can provide extra information that categories can't, but this list is just a plain vanilla list—there's no lead and no extra data—its just an alphabetical list.  The guideline you quote talks of advantages and disadvantages.  What exactly are the advantages of this list? Moondyne 08:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I also note that this list is a relatively early Wikipedia article, created in February 2003. The categorization system was implemented in June 2004.  I don't believe that a new list of this standard would survive any length of time for the reasons I've stated. Moondyne 08:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Bardin is correct. "There's a category for this" is not a valid rationale for deletion of a list, especially when no other supporting rationales are presented. &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 05:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well then, what is a particular advantage of list of hard rock musicians over category:hard rock groups? It seems the authors of the list are trying to replicate the formatting of a category page. Many other lists offer short blurbs or hierarchy, but not this one. It's marginally easier to build a list because there's just one page to edit, but that's a poor argument. Potatoswatter (talk) 06:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ideally lists can add sourcing and further information. This one doesn't do that too much, but it doesn't mean it can't. And although this is not a genre of music I enjoy this list in principle is no different than many others in Category:Lists of musicians by genre. For examples List of alternative country musicians, List of calypso musicians, List of R&B musicians, etc. Preferably though lists like this should be doing something a category would not in order to justify their existence. Example List of folk musicians is arranged by nationality and contains red-links that encourage expansion.--T. Anthony (talk) 08:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not mean to shamelessly plug my own work but I think I've made the list of folk metal bands a fine example of how such a list of bands by genre can be improved to include many features that a category simply do not and cannot offer. This barren list of hard rock musicians might need some work but that's only a cause for improving it and not deleting it. --Bardin (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * off-topic: nice work. You really should consider taking that to WP:FLC. Moondyne 12:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Bardin. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 09:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Bardin and T. Anthony. -- JulesN   Talk  10:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, I would advocate keeping this list if it provided any information that the equivalent category did not, but since this is just a copy of the information in the category that is harder to maintain, I do not believe getting rid of this would be any great loss. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC).
 * Delete Lists only serve a purpose not provided by a category when it has content not providable by a category. This is a raw list of wikilinks with no additional content, so it serves no purpose. -Verdatum (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Meh. I generally find lists useful, but they have to add something to what a category would provide (see WP:CLN). I don't see that here, so I don't see the point of having this list.  But if someone finds it more useful than the corresponding category, I don't see the harm in keeping it around... Klausness (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Bardin and perhaps advice former list developers to improve in the pointed direction. --Ruziklan (talk) 11:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Bardin pretty much says it. Peter Fleet (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2008 (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.