Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tango singers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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 that no valid conclusion regarding consensus can be drawn from the debate as it exists. This is not a "no consensus" closing, and no precedent should be drawn from this nomination.

In the absence of clear policy of factual outcomes, the outcome is determined by vox populi. But a deletion discussion is a sampling excercise to determine consensus, not a census. Anything that skews this sampling is a bad thing. There is a clear line between drawing attention to a debate and freeping and that line was clearly crossed in this case. Let there be no mistake: This is behavior that is not tolerated.

However, having examined the interactions on the talk pages at great length, it is impossible to determine what effect this outcome has had on the debate. While the majority of those contacted did not comment, the effects of a message on a talk page are often felt far beyond those who comment directly. Thus this debate is broken beyond repair.

With regards to the arguments raised regarding maintenance and red links, it should be noted that Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) states clearly Ideally each entry on the list should have a Wikipedia article... The current list violates the policy on verification and reliable sources, however these flaws are correctable. Sources are a necesarry but not sufficient condition for inclusion however.

The most positive outcome would be that the tremendous energy devoted to this deletion debate be refocused on attempting to make this list first conform to all policies and guidelines, and then considering a renomination for deletion if required.

brenneman {L} 01:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of tango singers

WP:NOT, and also not clear at all what merits membership to this list. Wikipedia is not a meaningless list of information. --Ragib 01:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

having sung tangos is one condition. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Or being on a list in a publication with notoriety. Which seems to have been the case here. I see that The Grappler is dealing with this at this moment. If others can then be added when their article gets written, or when they get mentioned in another article (in that case the person who puts the name in, should provide a short bibliographical note), I think notability will not be a problem. --Pan Gerwazy 23:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Tobias Conradi, as of this time has spammed at least 23 people with a request to come and defend this page in violation of WP:SPAM - Internal spamming section. pschemp | talk 01:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC) User contributions for Tobias Conradi. ViridaeTalk 02:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: per WP:NOT. --Ragib 01:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

*Delete list is too vague, no real qualifications or vast "notability." Yanksox 01:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, Tobias, but you cannot strike his vote out. It is not nonsense, as what he claims is precisely what both sides disagree on. And he is definitely a regular Wikipedia user, so you have really no reason to strike his vote out. Please revert that.--Pan Gerwazy 23:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, that was Yanksox himself removing his vote for now, not Tobias. --Ragib 23:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
OOPS. Thanks for the remark, and apologies to Tobias. Bitte verzeihen Sie mir.--Pan Gerwazy 23:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
That is correct, I have removed my own opinion, and questioned the decision making at the time. Yanksox 23:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Please see Category:Tango musicians, which seem to cover this a lot better. Thanks. --Ragib 17:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid that musicians and vocalists are two very different things. Also, lists are helpful because they can be annotated and explained, like "So and so released one tango album early in his career". AdamBiswanger1 17:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Wao, at least someone here with some knowledge of the subject. Yes, musicians and singer is not an identity. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Some of these tango singers have contributed nothing - nada to tango music in se, because they followed the Argentine tango conventions of their days to the letter. But their voice and the way they sang invited millions to the world of tango.--~~
  • Keep as per AdamBiswanger1. A list like this should be treated with care - it is not the only controversial one. I see that a page like Oleg doubles up as a list of every famous Russian called Oleg, and as a redirect page to rulers called Oleg. Calling tango singers "tango musicians" may sometimes be inappropriate (some of them may find it funny themselves) and in the case of my addition to the list, Pyotr Leshchenko - who rearranged texts of Russian romance songs to make them conform to Argentine tango, but never (re)composed anything rather contoversial. Most of the singers who are (also) mentioned as tango musicians seem to have done some acting in films. Perhaps that made them "tango musicians" in the popular mind? Talking about Wikiprojects, I see Tobias Conradi has recently started Wikipedia:WikiProject Tango. He IS rather pushy, but hopefully there is no hidden agenda here - a lot of his stuff seems to be getting AfDed at this moment? --Pan Gerwazy 16:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. I request you withdraw your last comment, unless you can reveal the hidden link between me and anything related to Tango. Feel free to dig up my contribution tree. --Ragib 17:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
chico,do we need a contribution tree? After attacking tango.info now it's list of singers. All within few days. All during or near to a 8 week block of mine, which was reduced. And you say there is no agenda? What a coincidence. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Tobias, please refrain from such personal attacks. I haven't even read any Tango related articles before I nominated this, while going for cleanup of random articles. And I looked at the other article you have mentioned, which is under afd by someone I have never even communicated with. Whether you are under block or not is not a something I know or want to know. So, UNLESS you can show I am part of the global anti-Tango conspiracy, please refrain from making ridiculous claims. I hope you would retract your comments. As I said, my contribution list is open for you to look and find any relation with Tango. Thank you. --Ragib 21:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I was not suggesting that you had something against Tobias, or something against tango. It just seemed like "there was something in the air". Someone got himself blocked, and all of a sudden ... But OK, since at this moment no more than two persons are voting "delete" on both AfDs, my impression looks unfounded and I will have to withdraw the comment.--Pan Gerwazy 23:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. --Ragib 23:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
If you really were not invited by any anti Tobias, or anti tango.info wikipedians, then at least at that front it is fine. Since I have read somewhere that a community my recent attackers belong to use other channels of communication, a contrib list does not really help. But I trust you. Anyway, would be nice if you would have contacted some of the contributers or the creator before Afd'ing or at least inform them. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Notability concerns also. The JPStalk to me 19:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The are all very notable. Seems you are not very familiar with this topic. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. If somebody is non-notable, take them off the list. There's a reference given in the talk page. Have the delete voters ever read WP:CLS? This is a textbook case of when a list is a good thing. Not all the singers have articles yet (it looks like they'll be along in the future, though) so there's a definitely improvement over categories for a start. How on earth is this meaningless? I am really struggling to understand. There have been tango singers in human history, that's pretty clear, what would be wrong with a list that listed a selection of the more notable ones (notable enough to eventually deserve an article, perhaps) and provided some brief biographical details? This list isn't there yet but there's no reason why it shouldn't. AFD is not cleanup. TheGrappler 20:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
And for those who haven't read WP:CLS, a short and unbiased summary is "lists, categories and series boxes have different advantages and disadvantages, and sometimes one, two or even all three of these are appropriate". If you read WP:CLS you will understand why Category:Tango musicians does not in the least make this list defunct, nor is at simple as "the category does it better" - the category does different things better. Does the category do red links, for instance? No! They are for different things and will work just fine side by side. TheGrappler 20:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment Consider, though, that WP:CLS is a guideline and that there are those who believe, for sundry reasons, all lists to be unencyclopedic; I'm not certain that I count myself amongst their number any longer, but it should be noted that there are those who are familiar with CLS and, indeed, believe it to miliate in favor of our keeping the article but nevertheless support deletion because they do not believe that the community writ large approve, generally, of the use of lists—to be sure, I am not one of the latter. Joe 05:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. We have "Lists of Jews" and other things, why lists or Tango Singers are bad? Lots of people like Tango and these singers are notable to them. What if somebody is researching on Tango music? I can thing of about at least 10 reasons why this list should be kept. Let us not forget that non-notability is sometimes on the eye of the beholder, I'm a Tango-ignorant and know at least 10-15 percent of this list. As the previous voter said, "real" non-notable people should be removed ("real", in this case, should be defined as non-notable within the Tango world), but that's it. Sebastian Kessel Talk 21:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - and if you don't have this music you are all invited to Berlin, I can lead you each night to a milonga where you can listen to their voices. Of, course you can also travel to Buenos Aires, but you would need another guide. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Alternatively, they could come to the "Feesten" in Gent-Belgium , Baudelo Park. Start next Saturday.--Pan Gerwazy 23:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - per Sebastian Kessel. Red links are also quite useful as an inspirations for the new articles abakharev 21:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Listcruft, this is possibly endless. What merits inclusion? Do you sing it in the shower and get added? What about a "List of people who whistle the 1812 overture while walking the dog" I am sure that is equally as encyclopedic and useful. List of fruits, used as an example in a keep vote above is well defined (the criteria for a fruit is definate) and limited. Keep ridiculous things like this as catagories for the selected few who are notable enough to warrant a full article. ViridaeTalk 00:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    Comment Tango is a popular form of music in the Spanish-speaking world. A tango singer is as definable as a pop singer or an opera singer or a rock singer, or any other type of vocalist that you can think of. Let's not crumble in the face of a trick task, which would be defining "tango singer". Also, we need to come to terms with the fact that lists can and will exist peacefully on Wikipedia. See WP:CLS. Lists are good. People like them. People learn from them. They are accepted. And this is about as legit a list as any other that exists on Wikipedia. Here is a series of axioms for people who like logic:
  1. This list is of a useful and notable subject
  2. This list can be more than a category (with annotation and explanations)
  3. Any list fulfilling these two requirements should be included

Conclusion: Keep the list. AdamBiswanger1 00:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources, especially in difficult or contentious topics. Taken from WP:LISTS. Change it to "List of notable tango singers" and I would be happy to support its inclusion in wikipedia. The same satandards would apply to me supporting the inclusion of any similar lists such as "List of rock singers". ViridaeTalk 02:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
How about we write in the first sentence that inclusions must be notable? Something along these lines: "This is a list of notable singers whose main musical genre is tango, or who can be said to be at one time identified as a "tango singer" in sincerity." AdamBiswanger1 02:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Better, but can verification be provided that all the names in that list are notable? ViridaeTalk 02:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunetly not, but usually in these situations the best thing to do is keep the number of red links down, and if too many arise and it looks like a sea of red, then we can talk to someone from WikiProject:Tango to find out which ones are the junk names. AdamBiswanger1 02:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
The membership criteria is essentially "they deserve an article". There's a lot of red links but that is basically because this entire subject seems to have been completely forgotten about. Unfortunately, the upshot of "they deserve an article" is that the real notability concerns are decided by WP:MUSIC, but it's inappropriate either to copy and paste that entire definition of notability or to give a link into Wikipedia space. As a compromise what I've done is moved the list to "List of notable tango singers" and put in a scary hidden comment (you'll only see it in edit mode) that basically says "put in a referenced assertion of notability, or your entry will be removed from the list". In this kind of list that's the best that can be done - that doesn't mean it's a write-off. It certainly seems to pass the criteria on WP:CLS which are the ones that really matter here. In fact (and as a person who hangs out at WP:FLC a lot I have some experience in this) this must already be one of Wikipedia's best referenced lists! TheGrappler 05:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete- per TBC. Cleanup. I'm convinced that you guys can clean this up and make it a decent list, I just hope that you do so. Unfortunatly, sometimes it takes an AFD to get things like this to a decent state.pschemp | talk 01:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • voter admin pschemp probably is only here, because she watches everything I do in WP. I once called this stalking for which this admin blocked me. [1] Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • As was stated above 3 or 4 times, musicians are not necessarily singers. AdamBiswanger1 01:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - per Sebastian Kessel --San Marcos 03:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above; there is a reason we use lists at Wiki. syphonbyte 16:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Unmaintainable list, insufficient evidence of notability for current entries. Closing admin should take votestacking into account and discount spurious keeps that Tobias marshalled. Delete ++Lar: t/c 17:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm afraid that this is not simply a vote, and all concerns of the "delete" voters have been soundly addressed, if not defeated by myself and others. The questions that face this list are the same as any other on Wikipedia AdamBiswanger1 17:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Correct! It is NOT simply a vote, and therefore Tobias's votestacking and the folk who turned up as a result of it, needs to be discounted. You haven't addressed my concerns to my satisfaction, far from it. Correct again, the questions that face this list are the same that face others, but this particular list and its creators, fail to address them successfully. This list would be marginally notable and marginally encyclopedic, even if thoroughly sourced, which it is not. (most lists are not, I comment delete on most lists, but not all) Your argumentatively replying to every comment is not going to work, I don't think. You also might want to check your assumptions about users as well. ++Lar: t/c 17:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
          • hi admin lar. did you vote here because you saw the discussion on my talk? Do you WP:STALK me too like pschemp does? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
            Easy, easy, easy. Let's keep a cool head and discuss the issue at hand. If you want to request mediation, feel free--, but I don't want this to erupt into a battle. See Template:calm talk AdamBiswanger1 20:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I don't wish to offend anyone, and I'm sorry if you object to my watchlisting this page. The fact is that no matter what, if I suspect that someone has submitted an uninformed opinion, I am going to very civilly and maturely challenge it. That's my right- in fact I consider it my duty. If I wasn't so weary from writing out my rationale so many times, I'd be happy to tell you again. I realize that I'm half-obsessing on this AfD, but do you have any specific concerns that you would like me to address so that we can call this process a consensus and not an instance of votestacking? AdamBiswanger1 17:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Go mark (with a reply that the comment is from a votestacked person) all the comments that are from people Tobias notified, that would address one of my concerns, and help the closing admin out a lot (that admin can then evaluate if the comment is just a flippant driveby or a comment that adds to the discussion in a significant way and should be counted toward consensus). The other concern really boils down to this, why is this list on a very obscure topic encyclopedic? Lists of random things are not. Why wouldn't a category do the trick instead? Easier to maintain and a better approach. I only support lists when a clear case is made that the list transcends what a category can do. (for example this one: List_of_European_Union_member_states_by_political_system which adds a lot of information beyond a mere list, it's really an article in disguise) Further, almost every person on this tango singer list is redlinked, meaning that their notability is not even known, much less established satisfactorily (I don't consider the cited sources as verifiable enough to confer notability, sorry) This list, on further reflection, smacks of OR in that the list composers are deciding who is notable and who isn't. ++Lar: t/c 18:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC) PS I take no offense at your watchlisting an AfD, I do that too! My issue is that you shouldn't repeat the same points to try to rebut.
            • Honestly I don't think that the closing admin needs any help, because at the moment it seems to be quite on the side of "keep". That was a long comment with many points, so I'll just state a few unrelated sentences.
              1. Tango is not obscure in Latin America.
              2. Redlinks allow for the creation of other articles
              3. An expert in Tango music can decide which names are too obscure. Or we could just use google.
            • Now as far as your votestacking allegations go, I see a slight bit happening with Tobias alerting fellow editors, but I see no problem with alerting all contributors to the page, which is what I did. Hence the raison d'etre of {{adw|pagename}}. Oh and one more thing. I am very consciously making the same points over and over because, well, they're true. Unless they are addressed by the other party to my satisfaction, I'm not going to stop my line of attack. AdamBiswanger1 18:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
            • My comment was placed because Tobias alerted me. So what? Does it count any less? Are my opinions less important because I didn't have the page in my watchlist and I only found out by an alert user? Tobias was just letting people that potentially cared about the article that they should express their opinions. Mine must have been good enough for two other editors to cite it for their own votes. Sebastian Kessel Talk 18:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
            • My worst fears about this AfD are coming true. Everyone who voted "keep" will now have to explain how and why they came here. Adam alerted me, I had no idea he was in favour of or against deletion reading his warning. I just feel passionate about this page because when I had finished my Pyotr Leshchenko article, I was glad to find this list, because I knew that putting him in the tango musician category would be too controversial for some Argentine tango purists (=an ambiguous expression, I know). On the active end, no, I did NOT invite anyone here, even though there may be a few people here who already wrote on my talk page (and definitely NOT about tango). Pure coincidence. I did not want to vote on the other AfD, but as more people there switched to here when the outcome became doubtful, I decided to have a second look there and Mikka convinced me. --Pan Gerwazy 20:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
                • No one accused Adam of votestacking. His polite request was fine. Tobias's request to come and defend, was however not. That's the whole point of refraining from internal spamming. Had Tobias not spammed people with a request to come and "defend", no one would be questioning the keep votes at all. pschemp | talk 23:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
                  • From what I can see, Tobias didn't seem to "spam," he notified users that ought to be notified about this. It doesn't look like many of them came, anyhow. (I was not one of those users, by the way.) syphonbyte 00:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
                  • I think the policy is he should not have used the word "defendernos", except on the Argentina project page. However, we all know that such notifications are usually only sent to people who the notifier knows will vote his way. Of course it is only a survey I am now talking about, but have a look at [2] where a user managed to get seven oppose votes in one night against a revert of a name change he did while he was in a period banning him from amongst other things, renames of articles. Of course he did not tell anyone he contacted to vote "oppose" but do you really think he contacted anyone he did not know for sure would vote "oppose" (and on a subject like that one, it is rather easy to know)? And as for what happened here, assyphonbyte said, the Argentinians are conspicuous by their absence. --Pan Gerwazy 17:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
                    • Update: I have meanwhile advertised this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tango_%28dance%29. I think what I say there, is non-committed enough. As for the Deir Yasin controversy, someone has intervened and it does not look like Wikipedia will make the news as a Deir Yassin Denial site. Yet. I also think I know how Alex Bakharev got here. There was a minor scuffle at Chechnya over the External References there. After I reverted a Russian's POV renaming of Alex's names for the groups of references he created, I got a funny remark on my talk page. Alex is an administrator by the way, and I suppose he followed my talk page to see if other remarks would be made after the revert and his invitation to me to further rename the groups. [3] --Pan Gerwazy 16:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This discussion may have gotten a little too agresive, but the article has improved and seems to be a legitimate list of singers with real qualifications. This list could be improved with creation of articles that address the subjects mentioned. However, that is not a reason for deletion, this list can be expanded and can become a solid article. Yanksox 17:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Yanksox, if only everybody was as calm and detached as you - and that also applies to me, I know :<) --Pan Gerwazy 20:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete List criteria is too vague for my liking, but more worringly, there may be copyright problems here, as the majority of the article is copying the information from two lists found on other websites, which I don't believe we should do. If a singer appears on the list, mention it in their article and cite it, sure, but copying the lists in their entirety to wikipedia? I don't think so. Regards, MartinRe 17:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect, I highly doubt that copying a list could consitute copyright violation, especially considering they are both in alphabetical order, and similarities exist by virute of the fact that they are both 'lists of tango singers!. Also, I doubt that one can copyright a list. AdamBiswanger1 17:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
If it's a list of facts, maybe not, but if it is a subjective list compiled by someone, then yes, I believe it is copyrighted. (being original and requiring work to create) For a comparasion, see the article The 100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time, I think that Rolling Stone would not appreciate if wikipedia created an article for notable guitarists that just happened to contain everyone on their list. (see discussion on they talk page of that article for similar reasoning) Regards, MartinRe 18:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
So basically: you are damned if you use a notable source and you are damned if you do not. I see by the way that Pschemp and Lar have come here. Ragib?--Pan Gerwazy 19:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and I forgot. If one of these websites you mean is Tobias's site, I have no doubt that when he returns from his new block, he will state that he is prepared to put the list into the public domain, if that is the problem. Plus: names of singers can be appended to this list as articles about them get written - and some of these articles have already been wtitten and the names appended - so where is the copyright then? --Pan Gerwazy 20:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
It's okay, you can chill about the copyrights. A list is copyright but the fact that somebody exists on a list is not. That's one of the reasons that our "list of missing encyclopedia articles" contains a bunch of encyclopedia indexes mixed together. Some of the individual indexes would be copyright, but the collective one is not so. Those lists may be reconstructable from the data, but what is presented is a new list that isn't a simple reproduction of any of the others. The Turkish and Russian tango singers on the list are a guarantee of that. If you don't think "notable" is a strong enough inclusion criteria then where would you set Wikipedia's article inclusion guidelines? All of the articles clearly meet the demands of WP:MUSIC for their work in this field. Please view the page in edit mode where this necessity is reiterated to editors. It would be a violation of WP:SELF to inform readers that "in this context, notable" means that WP:MUSIC is fulfilled", and that is such a long document there's absolutely no point summarizing it. But seriously, isn't the fact that a reliable source has classified them or identified them as a notable tango singer enough? I suspect you'd probably drop in horror at List of notable brain tumor patients which is actually a featured list! Additionally, as the summaries get filled in, ultimately there'll be no need to assert notability from the fact that they are in the list... or rather there will be, because that list is just an index to a series of articles, and precisely those articles from this index will appear as the references for those individuals, but it maybe won't be so obvious as using the flat "appears on this list" template. Besides, what if I renamed those source list references to "this person has a biography on todotango.com" and "This person has had recordings of their singing published (Source: their appearance in the tango.info database)"? Since tango.info only has one url to access the singers' database, that's the only one that would be cited anyway... I hope you see the ridiculousness of the situation? I know Tobias isn't the most popular editor, and yes, it wasn't his greatest ever idea to go messaging, but he certainly didn't contact me. I am here - and I put all that work into this article - because I was surprised (in fact, at turns, outraged) at this nomination, and believe it goes firmly against the guidelines at WP:CLS. I imagine Tobias was absolutely furious. Being unpopular is one thing, then having an AFD brought against a pretty solid article (although in the state it was in at the time it was nominated, I can understand the decision to bring to AFD... but would rather that the nominator had reviewed WP:CLS thoroughly since that was what was implicitly invoked, and would be genuinely surprised if the nominator had not then chosen to send this to cleanup) must have felt like getting spat on. That's probably why he has got so defensive and engaged in methods that are now ticking other people off. TheGrappler 08:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment "A list is copyright but the fact that somebody exists on a list is not", that I would agree with, as per my original comment. But there is a big difference between mentioning in a specific article that the subject is on a list, and having an article which lists everyone on that list. The latter is reproducing the list, in my view, whereas the former is not. The list of missing encyclopedia articles is a little different, as it is a list of facts, but a list of notable singers is a subjective list and as such is covered differently. With regards to your ridiculous situation, the fact that the bulk of the article comes from just one or two references (and uses the entirety - not a sample - of those references) only increases my copyright concern. If the goal of this list is to have an article for each one (and remember WP:MUSIC is a guideline, it is possible for a singer to "pass" WP:MUSIC and still be deleted in an afd), then it would appear to be covered by a category and possibly this list would be more appropiate as To-do items in project music. Regards, MartinRe 10:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Additional Comment Also, if one of those lists comes from a wikipedian's own web site, then even if it was PD'd, I would have concerns about an editor creating articles which use his own web site as the primary reference, as there could be difficulties with OR, as it would be a list of notable singers - where notable is defined by one of the wikipedians editing the article. Regards, MartinRe 13:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Again: damned if you do, damned if you do not. You know that if we combine your objection and the one of the nominator, every single list on Wikipedia has to go?--Pan Gerwazy 17:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Attacking the character of other editors is not the proper manner to show why an article should remain up. We should all show each other respect since this is a discussion and our goal here is to examine the notability, verifiability of this aritcle, not to attack our colleagues. There is some objectional behavior going on over here, and it needs to cease. Yanksox 12:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Wonderful, indeed. I retract my contention about an anti-Tobias atmosphere and kaboom! they are here. I have just written that the Argentinians are conspicuous by their absence (they still are, in fact) and yes, someone arrives on the scene accusing the opposers of being racists. Of course, calling "tango" a "very obscure topic" (and i quote VERBATIM) does not help at all.--Pan Gerwazy 00:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong KEEP. Furthermore, it could be fleshed out a bit. There seems to be precedent for pages like this. It's a bit irresponsible to put this page up for deletion based on a claim like, "it's not clear at all what merits membership to this list," when the *title* of the article is List of *Tango* singers. Tango, as in the music. If this were a page about singer-songwriters or blues musicians or Rock guitarists, I wonder if it would be up for deletion? Yeah, Tobias has been prolific and quite enthusiastic about Tango but just because the guy made a bunch of pages, it's like we're going to nit-pick every single one, like we're looking at chads in Florida? --Antelope In Search Of Truth 03:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per AdamBiswanger1 Patcat88 04:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: These last two users obviously did not know that they were to say whether they were invited. However, I checked and I cannot see the word "tango" on their talk pages, so they do not seem to have been invited by Tobias Conradi. --Pan Gerwazy 16:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and create a List of notable tango singers - there is merit in this list since it has annotations and references. However, there is no criteria for inclusion so it is open-ended. I think it should be deleted then the notable information can be extracted to the new list. BlueValour 21:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
See: The first paragraph of the list, which closes the open end. AdamBiswanger1 21:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - So much red ink makes me feel queasy! Despite the first paragraph there is no notability statements/references for most of the people. If an AfD is not going to provoke a cleanup a Keep certainly won't. I still believe a fresh start with some sharp notability criteria is needed. BlueValour 21:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I myself am a big fan of red links because they provoke expansion, and regarding possible non-notable links, most of them come from a website with a similar list and are cited as such, and I believe this has been put at a to-do list at WikiProject:Tango AdamBiswanger1 21:37, 17 July 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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_List_of_tango_singers_3cb7.html"