Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable spoken word performers


 * 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. Category:Spoken word artists and sub-cats already exist (since November 6), editors are encouraged to make use of those categories. Pastordavid (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

List of notable spoken word performers

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Potentially boundless list, poorly defined criteria. Violates WP:NOT. meshach (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC) meshach (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

No vote from the creator; just a spinout of listcruft from Spoken word. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 21:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename. Spoken word is a notable and specific form of art. However, per the naming conventions, the word "notable" should never be used in an article title. Rename to List of spoken word performers. A  ecis Brievenbus 21:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:LC - use a category to contain the notable people as that is self-maintaining unlike a list. Stifle (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. WP:LC specifically states "the perception that an article is listcruft can be a contributing factor to someone voting for deletion, but it may not be the sole factor". WP:LIST and WP:CLS should also be consulted. --Paularblaster (talk) 01:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Category-fy Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 06:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - It took seven minutes for this list to go from being a part of the Spoken word article to being AfD'd as "listcruft"? It's kind of ridiculous and unrealistic for us to treat this as a completely stand-alone article instead of just a part of the Spoken word article. It should be bound more by WP:NNC instead of anything else. Besides, aren't articles generally given five days after creation before they're eligible to be AfD'd? Torc2 (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not exactly - they can be nominated at any time after creation, but are not (except in the case of WP:SNOW) acted upon until they have been here for five days. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 16:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Create and populate category(ies) then delete&mdash;Presently, this is simply a list of wikilinks without additional information, which means that it can be best handled through categorization. Red-links should be handled through the Requested articles process, and a link to a subsection of the appropriate page(s) can be included in the category headers. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 18:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Categorize per Fee Fi Foe Fum et al. Bearian (talk) 19:52, 17 December 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.