Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of female singers

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 of the debate was delete. Petros471 15:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of female singers

Same reason as List of male singers above. Highly unmaintainable and incomplete. Categories are much better suited to something like this. FuriousFreddy 13:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - listcruft - list that will go on and on and on - Peripitus (Talk) 13:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete having a list that can expand isn't a bad thing, but this is far too broad. Yanksox ^(talk) 14:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - unmaintainable listcruft. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 14:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep First up, yes I'm partisan. Ok, so both the female list and the male need attention, which is what they've been getting. They were badly thought out when they were started, long before I came to them, but they're being shaken down albeit slowly. "Horribly incomplete" is not, I contend, a justification deleting the thing, it's a reason for fulfilling its potential. And "unmaintainable" is surely a judgement call for whoever's prepared to undergo the maintenance. It takes time, and that's also what it's been getting. I both have a useful aide memoire and cross-reference (otherwise clearly wouldn't have waste time on them). Categories do not prvide the simple two-dimensional cross-reference that a list does. I would have thought that this is exactly the organic process that WP thrives on. I do have an issue with the inclusion of selected portraits which have recently appeared (along similar policy lines of not embellishing disambiguation pages). Cain Mosni 15:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, this is what Categories are for. —Cuiviénen 16:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Categories don't provide the second dimension of cross-reference. Cain Mosni 22:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they do. Click on teh Category link and you have a "list" of all pages in the category. —Cuiviénen 00:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

No, they don't. Often a singer is only mentioned in the article on a band, and doesn't have an individual bio. If you just know the singer's name, you won't find them in a category, but may find them on this page. Wikipedia's categories are somewhat limiting (with a restricted number of entries appearing on a page at a time). Essentially, you must know the first letter(s) of the article title to be able to find the article. That's tough when you have singers working under both full names and short names. With a category, I must know if a singer "Jane Dough", with a stage name of just "Jane" is sorted in a category under "Jane" or "Dough, Jane". With a large list, I just search ("in page" with my browser) for "Jane" and find it. We can even include a person twice on a list, if its really necessary. Theoretically, of course, manually maintained lists are terrible, but categories, as currently implemented, have their own problems. --Rob 03:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment This be a non-argument - if the person has no article yet and is only part of a band article, you will likely find them there with a search (more than likely with a Google of Wikipedia at most). When a page is created for them, they can be added to the category. Even if we accept the above argument, the page is still too long. Jammo (SM247) 04:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. What next, list of female persons?--MichaelMaggs 16:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete listcruft --Charlesknight 17:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Too broad even for a category. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 20:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Why people create articles they know will never be complete is beyond me. Danny Lilithborne 22:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Obviously, if the list of singing guys goes, this one does as well. -- Captain Disdain 23:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete use categories instead - this can go on indefinitely into the past and future. Jammo (SM247) 23:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete obvious listcruft. —Khoikhoi 04:08, 19 June 2006 (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.