Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of musical artists from Japan


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 12:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

List of musical artists from Japan

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete. Here lies yet another indiscriminate list which clearly violates WP:NOT. I have a wheelbarrow here full of WP:TROUT for anyone who disagrees. JBsupreme ( talk ) 21:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as article fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  22:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  —  Gongshow  Talk 02:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  —  Gongshow  Talk 02:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  —  Gongshow  Talk 02:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Could someone please explain why this topic wouldn't be prime material for a list? —Quasirandom (talk) 03:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Perfectly fine list, with clear inclusion criteria (IE - not indiscriminate). Works hand-in-hand with WP:CLN.  Lugnuts  (talk) 09:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In using the word "indiscriminate", we aren't saying that the description is vague. Instead, it's a matter of whether there is information to between one musical artist from Japan and another musical artist from Japan.  My feeling is that lists should be able to impart at least some information about the significance of a blue linked name; by analogy, List of Presidents of the United States would have clearly defined criteria for inclusion, but would be uninformative without some information to separate them (such as when they served in office).  In this case, even a one word mention as to whether they're classical artists, pop music, etc. would be feasible.  Mandsford (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, this is a pretty good example of an Index of articles as defined on WP:LIST, and comparable to others in the linked category. And as noted above, WP:CLN explicitly says that lists and categories are complementary (if I have the right spelling of that). —Quasirandom (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  01:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, this meets all relevant guidelines for a Index of articles as defined by WP:LIST, including having well-defined, discriminate guidelines for inclusion, and as such is a valid stand-alone list. That adds up to keep for me. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The "discriminate" is having articles in Wikipedia-- how many of the possible artists is that-- 1% perhaps. That would certainly not be indiscriminate.     DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep Definitely not indiscriminate. Qualifies as an index of articles under WP:LIST. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 01:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Of course, my argument relies on the need to remove those (very few) red links present in the list. I think musicians should only be listed here if they have an article currently. (The alternative fix is to make stubs for them after verifying they meet WP:ENT or similar.) -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 01:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * DELETE I'm inclined to agree with JBsupreme on this one. It doesn't pass WP:LIST it has no lead section, doesn't provide any useable information regarding the artists on the list (only wikilinks to their articles).  Here's a great test to see if a list is worthy of inclusion or not.  Could it be replaced by a Category?  If yes then the list doesn't pass WP:LIST and should be deleted.  If it actually adds information and value above and beyond what creating a category then it potentially has a brighter future.  Nefariousski (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment There's an interesting point here: I would disagree that it can be replaced by a category for the simple reason that there's too many articles. It's still not indiscriminate but it is a lot. The list can (and does) show these entries in a way no category could: In a well-formatted manner all on one page. This is, in fact, another point at WP:LISTPURP. I do agree that there should be a lede section, but this is something that can be fixed. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 07:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looks like a perfectly valid list. Again, categories, lists, and navigation templates are three different ways to group and organize articles. The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping.(1) — Rankiri (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve by including the type of music and perhaps some other useful information. This list is clearly acceptable per WP:LISTS. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete under WP:CSD as this list lacks any verifiable source to identify it as being suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, let alone a verifiable defintion to demonstrate that this is, in some way, a culturally significant cross-categorization. This list fails the basic principle that Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I doubt that this criterion applies to lists, but even if it does, most of the list's entries have Wikipedia articles and considered sufficiently notable by the standards of WP:N. — Rankiri (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, "Japanese musicians" is not a culturally significant categorization? I beg to differ. — Rankiri (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Even if this is a culturally significant categorization, there is no verfiable evidence in the form of citations or a externally soourced defintion to support this premise. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but your argument it preposterous. If you have doubts that Japanese musical professionals are culturally significant, try searching for their coverage on Google News and Google Books. You can also take a look at, as well as the inclusion guidelines of WP:SAL. — Rankiri (talk) 14:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Perfectly valid list, certainly not indiscriminate. Edward321 (talk) 01:29, 13 February 2010 (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.