Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of keyboardists


 * 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. As stated in WP:LIST, lists and cats are synergystic, so it's not a valid reason to delete. Also note that usefulness is not a valid criterion either. Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ( talk ) 00:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

List of keyboardists

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

Superfluous and the list would be huge if filled, as per the AFD for List of Vocalists Benefix (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. This is why WP has categories. chuuumus  ( talk ) 20:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Split into multiple lists. Should be split by genre and/or time period.  The list as it stands is way too broad to be useful, but it should be noted that the fact that the person's name and the band(s) they play(ed) in are listed means that the list approach is more useful than categories in this case.  JulesH (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and then discuss how to split. DGG (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep because categories and lists are complementary, not redundant. The list should probably be split, but it is not currently so long that it needs to be, and there is no evidence that even completing this list to include all notable keyboardists would make this list unmaintainable. Even if this list were too broad, the list guideline suggests to split, not delete. This is not why Wikipedia has categories; categories cannot include useful information like what bands the keyboardist played in. Due to MediaWiki's lack of decent category tools or category annotation mechanisms, the Category:Keyboardists is wholly unweidly; to get the same information that is in this list, I'd have to go down three subcategories just to find Category:American rock keyboardists, for example, and then to click on every single article to find the bands they played in. While some people may find categories adequate, the only real use I've found for them is to help ensure that corresponding lists are up-to-date. DHowell (talk) 06:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Split into multiple lists per JulesH. The size of the article is starting to become problematic, but it does provide things the category can't. Splitting will provide additional information and make the pages themselves more manageable. - Mgm|(talk) 12:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as above; figure it out  Chzz  ►  16:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - not meaning a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument ... but ...your saying that keyboardists are less notable than guitarists & drummers. I dont understand how from your Nom. Statement. It takes all of them to make the music. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  06:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the kind of thinking that gives WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS a bad name. Please see Articles for deletion/List of drummers and Articles for deletion/List of guitarists (2nd nomination). Benefix (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - It serves its purpose as a quick access point for, err people interested in keyboard players. It is useful, well moderated and has a place in WP. Whereas spurious list haters who use WP:OTHERSTUFF as a self-perpetuating argument does not. What happens after decimating all the List of... pages, a full onslaught of the lists of categories? -- Web H amster  19:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Further to this I suspect that another agenda is at work as for some strange reason User:Benefix first started editing under this name on 24 Jan 2009 and 90+% of those edits have been to start AFDs on mostly list related articles. "Something fishy going on" is a phrase that seems to apply. -- Web H amster  19:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You have just made a personal attack on me for nominating all this listcruft. I think this should give you a clue as to why I don't do it with my main account. Benefix (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How do you equate "personal attack" with me just stating facts and suspicions based on those facts which you have just admitted in any case. So you are indeed a sockpuppet then? -- Web H amster  19:47, 9 March 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.