Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of record labels (2nd nomination)


 * 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. John254 00:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

List of record labels
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This list is grossly unhelpful as there are potentially hundreds-of-thousands of record labels and only a handful have been excluded in this list. This list does little more than a category does and is incomplete. WP:SALAT says: "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into categories. For example a list of brand names would be far too long to be of value." The "List of record labels" list is extremely too broad and too incomplete. For example, lets say I start a recording company in my basement for a couple of garage bands in my neighborhood. That's a record label, right? Anyway, if we limit it to just record labels who just have Wikipedia articles, we are essentually doing the same thing a category already does, besides, how long would it take for other non-notable labels to sneek in there. Anyway, I think you get the point... Tavix (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note:I also nominated the following articles for the same reason:


 * Note: The Category:Record labels has all of these labels on them, and way more. Tavix (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep all and rename List of record labels to Lists of record labels. Judging as to whether a record label is verifiable should be left to those who edit the articles. I will also challenge that these lists are not indiscriminate and that most seem to be manageable. Also, categories and lists can coexist per guidelines (more reading on that is here). MuZemike  ( talk ) 01:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * keep all It looks that we do limit them to ones with Wikipedia articles; there is no rule that we cannot duplicate a category and a list, and even when they provide the identical material, there is no reason why we should delete the list unless there is some specific reason to object to it. Just saying they duplicate is a non-argument. The relevant policy is NOT PAPER. (I do think the opportunity of having the lists should be taken to annotate the entries, to show at least country and dates of existence--this seems so far to have rarely been done--but that';s an editing question.)DGG (talk) 01:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC).
 * Keep, simply because it's unclear to me what has changed since the last nomination. I don't have a strong opinion about it, though. For the record, I'm not the creator of the list. This list is ancient in Wikipedia time; I'm just the first edit recorded when we switched wiki software. --Stephen Gilbert (talk) 02:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep all per above. I don't see what has changed since the last nom. Furthermore, this is a monstrous bundle afd, which is generally frowned upon. I don't see what is so unmaintainable about these, as red link labels can quite easily be bopped. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Bucking the trend here - these lists don't appear to satisfy any of the advantages of lists given at WP:CLN, and are essentially redundant to the many subcategories of Category:Record labels:
 * Exploratory browsing - categories function just as well in this regard.
 * Formatting - these lists are unformatted, and there's no sensible way to format them that'd be useful.
 * Easier to fill - filling these categories doesn't appear to have been a problem in practice.
 * Can be annotated - there's generally no annotation in these lists.
 * Can be searched - but article titles are even easier to search for.
 * Can be referenced - membership in this list is trivial and doesn't need referencing.
 * Can include unlinked items - if a label is insufficiently notable to have an article, it's probably insufficiently notable to include on this list.
 * Can be manually sorted - they're sorted alphabetically already, which is the exact same way that categories work
 * Can be linked to article sections - but this list doesn't, so nope.
 * Can include invisible links to discussion pages - wait, this isn't frowned upon as a cross-namespace link?
 * Can be more easily edited - not an overriding concern.
 * Can include images - nope
 * Can include templates - nope
 * Can include non-notable entries - see "unlinked items" above.
 * Categories are a powerful tool, and take a lot less maintenance than lists do. Unless there's some huge advantage to this list that I'm missing, it seems entirely redundant to me - the fact that it was started before categories were available is probably the only reason it exists at all. This one can go away now, just as List of people by name went away last year. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 07:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a wealth of difference between saying that something does not contain these features and saying it cannot contain them. Currently, these lists do not contain images, links to article sections, annotations and the like, but that's not the question. The question is, could they include them, and would doing so make these more than a simple category? The answer to that is "Certainly, yes". Also, your "unlinked items" comment goes against what is usual practice, which is that redlinks exist in such lists to indicate articles not yet written which could be. That is, the case is not "if a label is insufficiently notable to have an article, it's probably insufficiently notable to include on this list", but rather "if a label is notable enough for an article but doesn't have one yet, should its name still be noted somewhere. Again, the answer to that is "certainly, yes." (Keep) Grutness...wha?  02:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm pretty sure we couldn't use images - the only images that'd be relevant would be logos or album covers, and I don't believe that either would satisfy the fair-use criteria in this context. Unlinked items are a fair point in some other lists, but here, it's difficult to determine whether an entry belongs if there's no article to back it. (Indeed, as Lugnuts notes below, there's an active effort to remove entries which are redlinks.) Zetawoof(&zeta;) 04:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair comment on the images and the redlinks, but my comments still basically stand. A major reason why lists are preferred in some cases over categories is the ability to annotate. I can definitely see these lists being tidied to include location and style of music, given that many labels are specialist labels - e.g., "Foo Records (Italy; Jazz)"., and also whether the label is a subsidiary of another label. It may even be possible to turn them into sortable tables, so that each can be sorted by location, say, if a toggle on the top of the column is clicked. Grutness...wha?  10:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Lists of lists are allowed, and these lists are well-maintained, discriminate, and certainly notable. Themfromspace (talk) 08:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep all The category Record labels should have no articles in it, and as a result, all labels are sub-cat'd by country, genre, year of establishment and a few other things. Yes, there are hundreds and thousands of labels world-wide, but the inclusion on these lists (and WP in general) is that they are NOTABLE.  I've been very active in ensuring that non-notable links (and linkspam) are removed.   Lugnuts  (talk) 08:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I was about to agree with Zetawoof until I noticed how the categories were used. There's no way to browse record labels alphabetically if these lists go. Still, it's easy for non-notable entries to sneak in here because of the sheer size... - Mgm|(talk) 09:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good case for reorganizing the categories, then. Current practice discourages including an article in both a category and a parent category, but it might be worth reconsidering this practice in some cases if the alternative is to recreate the "virtual contents" of the parent category in list form. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 10:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But that would be a bigger issue that would affect all elements of WP, in terms of cat'ing an article, rather than a specific issue affecting these lists.  Lugnuts  (talk) 11:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't the easier option be to make a category tool that shows all contents of subcategories alphabetically? That retains the current subcategorizations and avoids having to categorize things into parent articles just to get an alphabetic list. - Mgm|(talk) 12:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That would also be an excellent approach. Has anybody looked into doing this? (Does it already exist?) Zetawoof(&zeta;) 00:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the A-Z lists, as Mgm points out they function as an alphabetical index of record labels, which the category system doesn't do (and so Zetawolf is wrong about #8). But it seems a pity to have to do it manually, if the intention is a non-annoted index of all labels in the category, it should be easy to automate. The other lists do look redundant unless someone wants to improve them. Juzhong (talk) 13:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:LIST Ijanderson (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - useful navigational structure, thusly important to our efforts to build an encyclopaedia. Categories do not, cannot duplicate lists. Wily D  22:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Simple question: If there were a category with the same contents, or a tool which displayed the contents of all the existing categories in a combined format, would this change your vote? Zetawoof(&zeta;) 00:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No. This type of list has value to users and helps in building the encyclopedia in ways that a category could not. Unlike categories, lists include redlinks and annotations, and they visible to users who are unaware of the existence of categories. --Orlady (talk) 08:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Record labels are an encyclopedic topic, and lists are both useful to users and an aid in creating and maintaining the encyclopedia. --Orlady (talk) 08:27, 19 December 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.