Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on the cover of Rolling Stone


 * 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) -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

List of people on the cover of Rolling Stone

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is really listcruft that violates the WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE sections of WP:What Wikipedia is not. We're not supposed to be an exhaustive collection of statistics, and this is very excessive. While magazine covers do generate publicity for people, any significant attention they bring individuals can easily be discussed on their own articles instead or perhaps the main Rolling Stone article itself in certain cases where the magazine itself faces controversy for its covers. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: We have a lot of lists on Wikipedia, but can't keep deleting everything claiming WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Readers would have to struggle to find people on covers if they're mentioned only in their own articles. RoCo (talk) 04:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I wasn't suggesting we delete "everything" per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and please keep WP:INDISCRIMINATE in mind, which says that Wikipedia isn't supposed to be full of excessive statistics. In many cases, being on a magazine cover isn't nearly important as the work a subject does anyway, and it isn't always even worth noting when someone is on a magazine cover to begin with. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep. This isn't indiscriminate. This is not a directory of everything that ever existed. The list has lots and lots of bluelinks in it(and very few redlinks). We have secondary sources that discuss being on the cover.Burning Pillar (talk) 11:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Making the cover of Rolling Stone has been a particular kind of validation for celebrities and musicians since the magazine began; Shel Silverstein wrote a Top Ten hit about it, and a few examples from the plentiful coverage noting the significance (and controversies) of the cover include  etc. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User:SNUGGUMS, do you still think that this article should be deleted or not? If not, you could withdraw your nomination.Burning Pillar (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Keep" might not be the best description, but I'm fine with ValarianB's suggestion of breaking out into separate lists. Not sure if I can withdraw an AFD I started when I think splitting an article out is better than keeping it in the pre-AFD state. Snuggums (talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 17:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Seriously? Dr. Hook? The Cover of Rolling Stone? Making the RS cover has long been a notable aspect of American pop culture. Having said that, the layout and setup of this article is clunky and rather difficult to navigate.  A sortable table, or a breakout like List of covers of Time magazine may be a good idea. ValarianB (talk) 12:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * While this might not be as significant as being declared the Time 100 Person of the Year, having separate lists by decade like Time magazine does would certainly be better than this nightmare of a page. I hadn't thought about it before, but have no objections to splitting into separate articles like that as those would be much easier to manage and have clearer scopes less likely to get blown out of proportion. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 14:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 23:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 23:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 23:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - Could use better sourcing, lead, and presentation, but it's a notable and appropriate list subject. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 23:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep As above, this is by definition non-indiscriminate (so it is... discriminate??) by virtue of having a specific inclusion criteria, and one that is somewhat tantamount to an award in itself. It definitely could stand with some formatting/tablizing(???) and so on. Crow  Caw  18:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - As already mentioned, being on the cover is considered a noteworthy accomplishment (probably moreso than being on the cover of Time). I agree with the idea of tabulating the list, and possibly splitting it up based on decade or issue number (for example: List of people on covers 1-500, 501-1000, etc.). Also, this page should probably be renamed to indicate that these are for United States covers only (have often seen people from international editions' covers added to the list). JLThorpe (talk) 00:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment to voters I can see how there's clear opposition to outright deletion, and splitting has been proposed to help make things more manageable, which I feel could work well. Given JLThorpe's comment on location, would List of people on the United States cover of Rolling Stone (*year*–*year*) (i.e. "List of people on the United States cover of Rolling Stone (1970–1979)") or List of people on the United States cover of Rolling Stone (*name of decade*) (i.e. "List of people on the United States cover of Rolling Stone (1970s)") be a better format to use? I don't know if me withdrawing the AFD is appropriate at this point when I'm not in favor of simply keeping the list as it was before nomination, and it might take a while to carry out a split into subarticles. An uninvolved user would probably have to perform the split. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 04:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Currently there isn't strong enough consensus for a split here in this discussion. You may wish to close the AfD as keep as no other opinion got stated, and propose splitting the article on the article's talk page, through which an appropriate plan could be laid out. RoCo (talk) 07:17, 6 April 2017 (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.