Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of radio DJs


 * 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. For closing rationale, see talk page.  Jerry  talk ¤ count/logs 01:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

List of radio DJs

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

Hopelessly incomplete list. Already categorized. Is this article adding any value? Rtphokie (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.   —Pixelface (talk) 13:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This would be far better handled by the already extant category. - Dravecky (talk) 13:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep It does serve one purpose that a category wouldn't, which is to explain the significance of a particular person's contributions to radio. I'm not that enthusiastic about it, but it has potential.  At the moment, it appears that efforts are being made to confine this to radio hosts who are notable among radio hosts, but that won't necessarily last.  There's apparently a "Radio Hall of Fame", and maybe such a list should use that as a starting point.  Mandsford (talk) 15:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Hi, I created this article by cutting out this (admittedly incomplete and rough) list out of the main DJ article. My concerns with list articles: I believe that lists are a major way for POV and OR to creep into Wikipedia, because whereas it is fairly hard to "sneak in" non-notable information about your brother's ex-girlfriend's bar band into a proper article on the history or rock, such non-notable content is often added to list articles. However...That being said, I think list articles can be useful if the lede lays out a notability criterion (e.g., for music, being in the top 10, for scientists, being listed in "Who's Who in Science", etc) --- and, as long as the list is organized in a way that makes it useful to readers. I think alphabetical lists are not that useful to general readers, since the list by itself does not give any sense of the timeline or relationships between the listees. I think it is better to list the items chronologically or by country / genre, etc.  Conclusion: A well-done "List of Radio DJs" article would be useful to readers. The current list is NOT well done. But it should be improved, not deleted. ThanksNazamo (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment significance should be established in the article, not a list.--Rtphokie (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * CommentHi,Due to space limitations, it is natural that the main article on a given topic will mainly deal with just the most inflential examples. For example, for an article on the history of house DJs in Detroit, we are mostly going to hear about Frankie Knuckles. However, let us say that there are 30 other house DJs from Detroit in the 1980s that meet Wikipedia notability criteria (e.g., they recorded for major labels, sold XX million records, and were reviewed in leading music publications). In this example, an article entitled "List of 1980s Detroit House DJs" (which would have a ==See also== note in the main "History of House DJs" article) would help readers to see the less well-known, but still-notable DJs from this period. ThanksNazamo (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The better article about those 30 other house DJs, if notability could be established, would be a prose article about "Detroit House DJs of the 1980s" instead of a bare list. A listing of people not themselves notable enough to have their own article is little better than useless. Flesh it out with referenced information and make a go of it. - Dravecky (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, Thanks for your comment. Sorry, I didn't specify that all of the people in the list would have to be notable enough to have their own article. I am arguing that without the "List of Detroit House DJs of the 1980s" list, these lesser-known DJ articles would just be drifting around in Wikipedia. Another thing I didn't mention is that, IMHO, lists should have at least basic information along with the Wikilinked name. Thus for the House DJs example, we might hear what major clubs they were residents at, their major releases, top 10 tracks, etc. These little biography summaries (just one or 2 lines per person) are the "value-added" that makes the list article more valuable than just the "CATEGORY" list. Just some ideas : ) Nazamo (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * CommentRegarding the "Hopelessly incomplete list" comment in the headline, I think that that is not a good part of a deletion argument. If problems with the current level of completion of an article was a valid grounds for deletion, then we should go and delete all "Stub articles.".... :) .... No, but seriously...Isn't it a stronger argument to claim that there is a fundamental problem with the list ITSELF (e.g., POV fork). In this case, the "concept" of the article is sound. It is just the "execution"  that is problematic. The article can be improved, as I discuss elsewhere in this section. Thanks...Nazamo (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Aside from being hopelessly incomplete, it's hopeless that it could be anywhere near complete. It's not really useful as a list; the category works far better.  Nyttend (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, but should be expanded and split up by country (as a list of all notable DJs worldwide would probably be too long for a single list). DHowell (talk) 23:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, if the intent of this list is to list the more important and/or influential DJs, then it needs more formal inclusion criteria (à la List of important operas or List of important publications in sociology). The criteria would have to be based on reliable sources indicating that the DJ is an innovator, a major influence in the industry, or has been inducted into the Radio Hall of Fame or some similar recognition. DHowell (talk) 18:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wake up keeple! These kind of things are better covered by categories. If you want to view all of them once, use Special:CategoryTree. 203.158.89.10 (talk) 11:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

WHOA UP HERE, PEOPLE!

Has nobody noticed that some of the editors here are talking about DJs in the club sense of the term, some in the hip-hop music sense, and the others about actual radio disk jockeys, the subject of the list? -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  15:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree and unfortunately the list itself, as it stands, is a mix of historic radio figures, internet radio hosts, club DJs, and a few talk show hosts (Art Bell is a talk show host, not a disc jockey). It's a mess in need of deletion. - Dravecky (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Master of Puppets   Call me MoP! ☺  02:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete This list would never be anywhere close to complete, and is probably just shy of becoming a major red link farm (where's Conrad Bruski, afternoon guy at WATZ?). There are already categories that cover this subject quite nicely. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Categories don't replace lists.  In a category, I can't quickly obtain information such as where the DJ operates or what hours he is on the air.  A list, however, is perfect for just this kind of thing, and as long as we don't put in every DJ in existence and try to restrict it to relatively notable ones (i.e, Bob and Sheri), then I see no reason why this can't be kept. Celarnor Talk to me  17:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. As it stands, it's useless as it lists only a handful of DJs, and certainly doesn't represent the most notable ones. Being a radio DJ does not automatically make someone notable - the list needs to be limited by specific criteria to be useful. There must be thousands of radio DJs, and I wonder if a list is really useful here as opposed to a category covering existing articles.--Michig (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I see many good reasons given for editing, but not for deletion.DGG (talk) 03:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve Needs editing and sourcing, but it is certainty notable.--Sebastian Palacios (talk) 03:45, 23 March 2008 (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.