Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of U.S. composers

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP

List of U.S. composers

too short and useless duplication of Category:American composers —Wahoofive (Talk) 04:24, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Wikipedia's category functionality is the right way of creating lists. It has the ability of holding an article and it automatically groups and manages related articles. The "articles hold red links" argument is a non-argument. It is extremely easy to create a new article, insert a small portion of information, add it to categories and mark it as stub. By this, wikipedia is better served because:

• a stub article is created, bringing more value to wikipedia and more potential to the information holded in that subject
• The listing is automatically managed.

So, therefore, every list should be converted to a category and every relevant red link should be converted into a stub category. --Maciel 12:03, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Lists are not categories. RickK 05:48, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• No, lists are not categories. But sometimes they're useless duplications of categories. This is one of those times. Delete. --Angr/_comhrá 06:40, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - A category is a list of articles, this is a list of composers, some of which may not deserve their own article. —Teknic^{Talk / Mail} 08:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm an American, I'm a composer, I'll never be good enough to deserve my own article. How come I'm not on there? =) List would be either redundant (that's listed elsewhere), unmanageable (too many!) or irrelevant (who cares?). Delete. Marblespire 09:54, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I do agree with Teknic in principle, but a 'list of composers' should list only famous composers, and all famous composers deserve an article. Radiant_* 09:38, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, list aren't categories. This list could include composers who are notable, but don't yet have an article. Mgm|^(talk) 11:55, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It is a well established precedent that lists and categories can exist side-by-side, even when their content is identical. Each has its own advantages - lists are centrally managed, allowing good control over their content, and can have extra commentary on each entry. Categories are automatically generated, which helps to track new articles, and can quickly and easily be navigated by means of the category hierarchy. Leave them both be. sjorford →•← 16:05, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. List <> category. --Myles Long 16:08, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment — Page needs to include information that is not in the category. — RJH 16:12, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. First, a list is an extremely useful way to put in redlinks to articles on composers that don't exist yet; indeed it's one of the only ways. Second, the list can contain additional information such as the composer's dates, which a category cannot. Third, it parallels many other existing lists of composers: some lists are by nationality, and some are by some other characteristic. Yes, the list is short, but it's barely begun: stubbiness should be an incentive to expansion, not deletion. Antandrus 23:26, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Mikkalai 23:47, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Has the potential to be useful list. If it is too short, then we should expand it. Capitalistroadster 01:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unnecessary duplication of Category:American composers. Quale 01:57, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I pointedly disagree with Radiant's statement that "a 'list of composers' should list only famous composers, and all famous composers deserve an article" - there are plenty of lists in Wikipedia that mention people who don't necessarily merit an article - look at List of Pharaohs.

Disagree. First, any Pharaoh evenrually merits an article. Second, you can't compare this to the list of Pharaohs because the list of Pharaohs is well-defined and neatly organized by dates, unlike this one. Trapolator 03:28, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

-- BDAbramson ^thimk 02:29, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

• Keep. The list contains a brief overview (birth-death) and type (e.g. jazz). May need to expand a bit. --minghong 18:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.