Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of synthpop artists

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. Mkativerata (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of synthpop artists

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Shoddy list lacking sufficient references. Information displayed in the list could be better represented using categories. I Help, When I Can.^[12] 05:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perfectly fine list on a notable subject with clear inclusion critera. If 38 references are not sufficient, then fix it. The category arguement fails - see WP:CLN for more. Lugnuts (talk) 08:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing more this list is doing that cats don't. Thus the category argument succeeds.Curb Chain (talk) 06:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep Lists are not mutually exclusive with or replaceable solely by categories for many reasons (see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates). This list fulfills the primary requirements of a list. It is discriminate, notable and verifiable. I see no reason to delete because it is poorly referenced. HominidMachinae (talk) 08:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the reason we have lists. Lists exist to add background to the entries. This is doing nothing more than listing the entries, which cats already do.Curb Chain (talk) 06:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perfectly fine as a list article; lists are not mutually exclusive with categories. However, do what we've done with the metal lists... remove everything without a source, and don't allow reinclusion until a source is found, or it just invites edit wars. 13:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason why List of progressive metal artists should be kept. Category pages do exactly what List of progressive metal artists is doing. What other metal lists are there?Curb Chain (talk) 06:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with Blackmetalbaz above. I am not a fan of list articles, but they are legitimate and we could borrow sources from the recently revamped synthpop article, which will cover the key bands and then delete those with no reliable sources.--SabreBD (talk) 13:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Not too many of them are sourced, and articles like this are a huge target for vandalism. Besides that, I personally see no use in a list like this. Couldn't a category do the same effect? And besides, a lot of these seem to be already present in the synthpop article itself. — Status {^talk_contribs 07:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Large target for vandalism is not a valid reason for deletion. Go ahead and nominate the George W. Bush article based on that rationale. And read the above comments about lists vs. categories. Lugnuts (talk) 07:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I listed five reasons why, not one. If all of them can be sourced, I will surely go ahead and change my vote to keep. But at its current state, no. I would maybe even suggest a redirect to synthpop. — Status {^talk_contribs 19:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This list is actually better referenced the the other genre lists either on the list or in the main article for the act which until now has been the "consensus" standard for this list. Edkollin (talk) 21:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of Off Topic: It is about time Wikipedia set specific ground rules for list inclusion. While ideally entries should be be reliably sourced within the list article itself as every article is supposed to be reliably sourced and non dependent on what goes on in other articles dependence on the main article has been the de facto standard for so long that unless most of the Wikipedians get laid off and divorced reliably sourced in the "main" article is more realistic.

I would also like Wikipedia to make the jump to user only entries. In my experience 90-95% of the non/unreliable sourced/non-notable entries are made by non users. This problem is particularly bad on music and list articles. For a more detailed argument see my user page. Edkollin (talk) 21:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All articles should be inline with each other.Curb Chain (talk) 06:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete shoddy list, as nom. Categories suffice.Curb Chain (talk) 06:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable musicians by a notable genre is really one of the most basic and obvious kinds of lists for this subject. Unless it is contended that there are no reliable sources classifying anyone notable as a synthpop artist, there is no reason to delete this list. The deletion !votes offered above are by and large classic arguments not to use in a deletion discussion, such as it's WP:USELESS, it's WP:RUBBISH, or it's WP:SUSCEPTIBLE to vandalism. The claim that the category is "sufficient" is contrary to WP:CLN, the most basic point of which is we don't delete one method of article navigation/article indexing/organizing information just because there's another. Some people like to work more with categories, others more with lists. The list, further, includes all entries on one page unlike the category, and could otherwise be annotated or organized even though it isn't at present.
Whether the list itself should contain references, or whether it's sufficient for the source for the genre classification to only be in the article listed, is sometimes a matter of contention generally with lists, and I don't particularly care about that point. Regardless, that's a matter for normal editing and discussion to resolve. I undid Curb Chain (talk · contribs)'s blanking of all entries that are unsourced within the list, as this is contrary to editing policy. By all means remove any entry that you believe in good faith does not belong, and probably any article listed that itself does not even mention synth pop as the subject's genre, but we do not indiscriminately blank content that can be sourced just because it isn't at present, particularly not if it's actually sourced within another article, as it may be in many of the entries. postdlf (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.