Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of new age and new instrumental 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 no consensus. W.marsh 19:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

List of new age and new instrumental musicians

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

This list is so broad as to be completely unworkable and unmaintainable. If we're just looking for a list of musicians with wikipedia articles, categories are better for that. adavidw 09:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Lists serve functions that categories don't, allowing for expansion and annotation. (I'm going to put that part on my talk page perhaps as I say it, or a variant of it, every time) Specific to this we have an entire Category:Lists of musicians by genre. Unless you want to delete all 117+ lists, you don't have enough of a reason why this one should be singled out.--T. Anthony 10:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, if it came down to it, I would want to delete all 117+ of those lists, though I don't have any current plans to do so. This is just the one that stood out to me most because of the kinds of articles that are getting added to it, which points out another problem with most lists.
 * It seems that if you have a list of foo, it attracts editors whose sole purpose is to get their favorite foo on the list. Editors must think a list is a symbol of importance or something, so a list just sits there and attracts non-notable articles, or encourages articles to be created on non-notable subjects just so they could be put on the list. Or, worse, they just put a name on the list of someone who doesn't even have a Wikipedia article. If they're not notable enough for Wikipedia, why should they be on a list of foo? Unless, of course, the scope of the list is "all notable and non-notable foo that ever existed or ever had any association with foo ever", in which case you get the problem that it's inherently impossible to make an accurate list with the scope that broad. Then, the editors that come to add their favorite person go away, and nobody sticks around to maintain the list, remove the bad references, check new addtions to see if they should actually be added, or reorder when appropriate. If there was any argument that a list of things is usable (which I'm not conviced there is), that argument fails when stuck up against the natural state of lists like these, full of chaotic formatting, and scores of items that never should have been added.
 * I'm convinced that the only people who ever even see lists like this one are the editors adding their favorite items to it, and not anyone that's using it for any form of reference or research. I understand the argument that a list can do things that a category can't by adding useful information about the list entries. However, that only works if people can find the useful information among the rest of the crappy entries, and if someone sticks around to make sure the list stays in a useful state. The natural state of lists works against that.
 * Take this list for example: To be useful, we'd have to settle on a question of scope. Is it "all new age musicians ever"? That's too broad and we couldn't hope to be accurate. Is it "all new age musicians who are notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia"? If so, we can more accurately present that information as a category. Is it "some representative notable new age musicians, enough to give someone unfamiliar with the genre an idea of who's doing this work"? That's a workable scope, and if there was an existing list like that, I could understand the argument that this list should be kept. To be workable, though, you'd have to keep the number of list entries down to maybe 20 or so, and if you do that, you're essentially making a value judgement about who's important enough to be on the list. That'll then bring out the editors who want to make sure their favorite Venezuelan synth player's on the list since it's obvious to them that the list is a list of "the best new age musicians evar". So you've got to make sure there are good editors keeping the list focused, or it quickly devolves into something like the current state again.
 * Now, having said all that, I'd love it if someone could tell me a real-world example of how this specific list was actually useful to them or how their Wikipedia experience was enhanced by this list, rather than theoretical pie in the sky examples of how useful lists could be in a perfect world. --adavidw 19:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per T. Anthony's citation of precedent. The list does need a better introduction however citing criteria for inclusion (for example, Enya is listed even though her music is not considered New Age by her fans or by Enya herself). 23skidoo 13:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per T. Anthony.  Gan fon  13:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom --Lee Vonce 16:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. and I DO think all of the "lists of musicians by genre" should be deleted as well. Plymouths 02:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Not convinced Wikipedia functions by precedent... Addhoc 16:03, 30 January 2007 (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.