Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of biographies of musicians in Rees's Cyclopaedia

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 delete. This has already been userfied to User:Apwoolrich/List_of_biographies_of_musicians_in_Rees's_Cyclopaedia, where it can be worked on off-line and proposed for restoration in main article space at some later time. Please note, however, that if the new version does not satisfy the concerns raised at this AfD, it ls likely to be nominated again. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of biographies of musicians in Rees's Cyclopaedia

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

Fails WP:GNG. Rees's Cyclopaedia is notable, but this list is not. This is essentially an index for Rees's Cyclopaedia. Wikipedia isn't a directory or an index for another source. Tchaliburton (talk) 16:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOTDIR #4. --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 17:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Lugia2453 (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The material is of serious scholarly interest, and the list satisfies WP:LSC. There are various ways to go from here. I don't really accept the argument from GNG, since I don't find the GNG that helpful, unless all else fails. Music articles in Rees's Cyclopaedia is one possible home, and I don't really see why not. Summary style is good, actually, but if there is resistance to this application of it, then the material doesn't have to be split out. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above - Fails WP:DIR, The material is of no ~~serious~~ interest in the way it stands right this minute, ~~If it was I'm pretty sure we'd not be here right now voting its fate~~. –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh but "C. Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted" from WP:BEFORE. Point 2: "If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article." The nomination for deletion was 12 minutes after creation. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah I wasn't aware of that, But anyone can still improve it whilst it's here, If it's presented in a better way than this I'd ofcourse change to Keep –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I nominated it for deletion because I didn't see any way of improving the article without completely restarting it. But if it can be improved and made encyclopedic, I would support keeping it. Tchaliburton (talk) 02:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. I'm in discussion with the OP about how to treat this material. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The main Rees's Cyclopaedia article has a number of similar listings, and this is consistent with them. I had just started writing the piece when the Delete notice went up, so maybe it would be best to wait until it is finished before making a final decision. I have a heading drafted to describe the background. I will be happy to Userfy if that gets round the problem. Apwoolrich (talk) 06:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have now re-started this article on my user page where I will finish it and Wikify the names. This AfD discussion can now be removed. Thanks. Apwoolrich (talk) 08:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete do not bring back, per nom. Wikipedia is not a Directory. And as to the fact that the material is of serious scholarly interest, that is why scholars would go to the source, not here. --Bejnar (talk) 22:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise that the source doesn't give all the information, even if it were easily accessible? A little research on Google Books with "Rees"+"Burney" is recommended. "...the great series of articles on musical topics which [Charles Burney] wrote between about 1801 and 1811 and contributed anonymously to Rees's Cyclopedia." [1]. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or userfy) and improve What we have here is a list, with clear inclusion criteria, of biographies from a notable encyclopedia of 200 years ago, all or almost all written by the most notable music historian of that period, of subjects all or almost all of whom are notable in Wikipedia terms (in fact, of the first eight musicians listed, I identified Wikipedia articles on seven in a five-minute search). The list can certainly be improved (for instance, it really needs links to the relevant Wikipedia articles), and I am not entirely convinced of the necessity for all the columns in the table (for instance, the one indicating the number of columns that each article occupies in Rees's Cyclopedia), and the article badly needs a (non-tabular lead section). But those are matters for improvement, not deletion. PWilkinson (talk) 14:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please see Lists of musicians which shows appropriate lists for locating musicians by genre, instrument, location, and ethnicity. This list is not an access tool, it is a directory. --Bejnar (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to WP:MISSING - Looks like an article that might be useful to WP:MISSING instead of a standalone article. It can easily be checked and expanded. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 06:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - While I agree that the subject matter is notable in aspects, I also agree that this is WP:NOTDIR nor do I feel it is worthy of having its own page. I think I would support merging it into another article that could better benefit from its content. Not sure there would be a way to build this page and still make it viable to stand on its own.Canyouhearmenow 12:07, 18 July 2014 (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.