- 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. ‑Scottywong | speak _ 13:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
List of live artists and groups
- List of live artists and groups ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
An indiscriminate list, with no explanation of its purpose, it duplicates the existing List of performance artists. The fact someone has added a musicians category is an illustration of how confusing this list is. There are musicians and artists listed! I'm inclined to raise the Live art article for deletion discussion too, it seems to be simply another term for Performance art. Recommend deletion. Sionk ( talk) 00:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. "Live art" (which I had never heard of until now) does appear to be a term in actual use by notable artists, but you may be right that it's essentially a synonym (or perhaps subtype) of performance art. In which case deletion of live art isn't necessarily the answer, but merger/redirection. As for this list, I perused the first dozen or so articles listed and only a couple even mentioned "live art", but not in any substance, they just were associated with a group that used the term in its name. There is a very long List of performance artists that would seem to serve the purpose and could use some development effort if it turns out this list is at best a poor duplicate. postdlf ( talk) 03:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 05:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: Live Art has certainly been a common term in the UK for a long time. I recall being at the National Review of Live Art in 1987. (Non-AfD trivia: a memory of Kathy Acker, Tony Benn and Neil Bartlett (playwright) standing alongside at the bar in Riverside Studios.) I think I use "live art" and "performance" interchangeably. I guess the question is whether / how to combine the performance and live art article materials. AllyD ( talk) 05:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete yet another
WP:OR list on wikipedia of random stuff that someone has decided fits with a particular theme (of their own making), in this instance "List of live artists and groups", utterly pointless and meaningless exercise.
Semitransgenic
talk. 10:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- An IDL by any other name would smell as sweet. Anarchangel ( talk) 18:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Merge to live artDelete ( live art no longer exists). Certainly no justification for a stand-alone list. The merge rather than delete is tentative, though, as I just PRODed the main article as insufficiently distinguished from performance art as the nom points out. --— Rhododendrites talk | 04:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 10:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom - there's nothing to merge to Live Art and the search term does not appear to be good enough to have a redirect. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - After an expired PROD, Live art now redirects to Performance art. --— Rhododendrites talk | 17:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Delete, as nominator. The list duplicates List of performance artists which does the job far better. Sionk ( talk) 17:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- I made it quite clear I was the nominator, so how can this be confusing. I raised a discussion without making a clear recommendation. I find it quite common for the AfD nominator to make their position clear in the discussion.
Sionk (
talk) 21:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- The problem isn't the comment, it was the additional !vote (i.e. the only part which was struck). As much as we don't like to admit such things,
information cascades exist at varying levels of consciousness, and something is communicated by seeing lots of !votes in one direction. --—
Rhododendrites
talk | 21:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- So nominators are not allowed to make a recommendation?! That's news to me! postdlf recommended deletion in every way except for the heading "Comment". Do we assume that is a delete recommendation too, or do we wait until it is unambiguously stated?
Sionk (
talk) 15:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- You can add as many additional comments as you like so long as you don't use the formatting of a separate !vote. I don't know how we could be more clear on that point. postdlf ( talk) 15:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- (
edit conflict)The problem isn't the recommendation, it was the additional !vote. Yes, if it said "comment" instead of "delete" that would be different. --—
Rhododendrites
talk | 15:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- Bizarre. This is all news to me and I've been active at AfD for years!
Sionk (
talk) 20:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- It's expressly noted at
WP:AFDFORMAT ("Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line") and it comes up pretty regularly, typically because of brand new editors who think they should add a !vote to every new bulleted comment they make. On the issue of implication here, you gave arguments that the list was fundamentally flawed, and offered no indication in your nomination that you wanted or supported anything other than deletion, so yes, both as a question of general practice and specific interpretation of your nomination, it seemed clear you wanted deletion even though you did not say the word "delete". That's certainly how I read it. And the fact that you merely repeated something you already said in your nomination in explanation of your later express "delete" !vote also belies any contrary reading of the nomination... Had you been on the fence or supported merging instead of deletion you should have said so clearly, such as by identifying a merge target as an option (notwithstanding the fact that you should then probably not have started an AFD, per
WP:ATD,
WP:SK#1, or even
WP:BEFORE).
But it seems like you're still not getting exactly what we're saying, based on your edit summary here; you're allowed to add as many comments you want, just don't use the formatting of a separate !vote (i.e., headed by a boldface "delete") which gives the appearance of a separate participant rather than a further comment from the nominator. No one would have complained had you just added a comment like "In case my nomination wasn't clear, I urge deletion," with or without a boldface "comment" at the front. postdlf ( talk) 20:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- It's expressly noted at
WP:AFDFORMAT ("Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line") and it comes up pretty regularly, typically because of brand new editors who think they should add a !vote to every new bulleted comment they make. On the issue of implication here, you gave arguments that the list was fundamentally flawed, and offered no indication in your nomination that you wanted or supported anything other than deletion, so yes, both as a question of general practice and specific interpretation of your nomination, it seemed clear you wanted deletion even though you did not say the word "delete". That's certainly how I read it. And the fact that you merely repeated something you already said in your nomination in explanation of your later express "delete" !vote also belies any contrary reading of the nomination... Had you been on the fence or supported merging instead of deletion you should have said so clearly, such as by identifying a merge target as an option (notwithstanding the fact that you should then probably not have started an AFD, per
WP:ATD,
WP:SK#1, or even
WP:BEFORE).
- Bizarre. This is all news to me and I've been active at AfD for years!
Sionk (
talk) 20:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- So nominators are not allowed to make a recommendation?! That's news to me! postdlf recommended deletion in every way except for the heading "Comment". Do we assume that is a delete recommendation too, or do we wait until it is unambiguously stated?
Sionk (
talk) 15:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- The problem isn't the comment, it was the additional !vote (i.e. the only part which was struck). As much as we don't like to admit such things,
information cascades exist at varying levels of consciousness, and something is communicated by seeing lots of !votes in one direction. --—
Rhododendrites
talk | 21:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- I made it quite clear I was the nominator, so how can this be confusing. I raised a discussion without making a clear recommendation. I find it quite common for the AfD nominator to make their position clear in the discussion.
Sionk (
talk) 21:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. and his/her subsequent comments. -- Bejnar ( talk) 05:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- 'Delete Per
WP:LIST
The contents of an article that is a stand-alone list should be clear. If the title does not already clarify what the list includes, then the list's lead section should do so. Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list.
No lead to indicate what the criteria for being a member of the list is. Hasteur ( talk) 12:46, 27 June 2014 (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.
- 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. ‑Scottywong | speak _ 13:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
List of live artists and groups
- List of live artists and groups ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
An indiscriminate list, with no explanation of its purpose, it duplicates the existing List of performance artists. The fact someone has added a musicians category is an illustration of how confusing this list is. There are musicians and artists listed! I'm inclined to raise the Live art article for deletion discussion too, it seems to be simply another term for Performance art. Recommend deletion. Sionk ( talk) 00:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. "Live art" (which I had never heard of until now) does appear to be a term in actual use by notable artists, but you may be right that it's essentially a synonym (or perhaps subtype) of performance art. In which case deletion of live art isn't necessarily the answer, but merger/redirection. As for this list, I perused the first dozen or so articles listed and only a couple even mentioned "live art", but not in any substance, they just were associated with a group that used the term in its name. There is a very long List of performance artists that would seem to serve the purpose and could use some development effort if it turns out this list is at best a poor duplicate. postdlf ( talk) 03:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 05:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: Live Art has certainly been a common term in the UK for a long time. I recall being at the National Review of Live Art in 1987. (Non-AfD trivia: a memory of Kathy Acker, Tony Benn and Neil Bartlett (playwright) standing alongside at the bar in Riverside Studios.) I think I use "live art" and "performance" interchangeably. I guess the question is whether / how to combine the performance and live art article materials. AllyD ( talk) 05:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete yet another
WP:OR list on wikipedia of random stuff that someone has decided fits with a particular theme (of their own making), in this instance "List of live artists and groups", utterly pointless and meaningless exercise.
Semitransgenic
talk. 10:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- An IDL by any other name would smell as sweet. Anarchangel ( talk) 18:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Merge to live artDelete ( live art no longer exists). Certainly no justification for a stand-alone list. The merge rather than delete is tentative, though, as I just PRODed the main article as insufficiently distinguished from performance art as the nom points out. --— Rhododendrites talk | 04:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 10:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom - there's nothing to merge to Live Art and the search term does not appear to be good enough to have a redirect. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - After an expired PROD, Live art now redirects to Performance art. --— Rhododendrites talk | 17:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Delete, as nominator. The list duplicates List of performance artists which does the job far better. Sionk ( talk) 17:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- I made it quite clear I was the nominator, so how can this be confusing. I raised a discussion without making a clear recommendation. I find it quite common for the AfD nominator to make their position clear in the discussion.
Sionk (
talk) 21:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- The problem isn't the comment, it was the additional !vote (i.e. the only part which was struck). As much as we don't like to admit such things,
information cascades exist at varying levels of consciousness, and something is communicated by seeing lots of !votes in one direction. --—
Rhododendrites
talk | 21:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- So nominators are not allowed to make a recommendation?! That's news to me! postdlf recommended deletion in every way except for the heading "Comment". Do we assume that is a delete recommendation too, or do we wait until it is unambiguously stated?
Sionk (
talk) 15:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- You can add as many additional comments as you like so long as you don't use the formatting of a separate !vote. I don't know how we could be more clear on that point. postdlf ( talk) 15:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- (
edit conflict)The problem isn't the recommendation, it was the additional !vote. Yes, if it said "comment" instead of "delete" that would be different. --—
Rhododendrites
talk | 15:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- Bizarre. This is all news to me and I've been active at AfD for years!
Sionk (
talk) 20:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- It's expressly noted at
WP:AFDFORMAT ("Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line") and it comes up pretty regularly, typically because of brand new editors who think they should add a !vote to every new bulleted comment they make. On the issue of implication here, you gave arguments that the list was fundamentally flawed, and offered no indication in your nomination that you wanted or supported anything other than deletion, so yes, both as a question of general practice and specific interpretation of your nomination, it seemed clear you wanted deletion even though you did not say the word "delete". That's certainly how I read it. And the fact that you merely repeated something you already said in your nomination in explanation of your later express "delete" !vote also belies any contrary reading of the nomination... Had you been on the fence or supported merging instead of deletion you should have said so clearly, such as by identifying a merge target as an option (notwithstanding the fact that you should then probably not have started an AFD, per
WP:ATD,
WP:SK#1, or even
WP:BEFORE).
But it seems like you're still not getting exactly what we're saying, based on your edit summary here; you're allowed to add as many comments you want, just don't use the formatting of a separate !vote (i.e., headed by a boldface "delete") which gives the appearance of a separate participant rather than a further comment from the nominator. No one would have complained had you just added a comment like "In case my nomination wasn't clear, I urge deletion," with or without a boldface "comment" at the front. postdlf ( talk) 20:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- It's expressly noted at
WP:AFDFORMAT ("Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line") and it comes up pretty regularly, typically because of brand new editors who think they should add a !vote to every new bulleted comment they make. On the issue of implication here, you gave arguments that the list was fundamentally flawed, and offered no indication in your nomination that you wanted or supported anything other than deletion, so yes, both as a question of general practice and specific interpretation of your nomination, it seemed clear you wanted deletion even though you did not say the word "delete". That's certainly how I read it. And the fact that you merely repeated something you already said in your nomination in explanation of your later express "delete" !vote also belies any contrary reading of the nomination... Had you been on the fence or supported merging instead of deletion you should have said so clearly, such as by identifying a merge target as an option (notwithstanding the fact that you should then probably not have started an AFD, per
WP:ATD,
WP:SK#1, or even
WP:BEFORE).
- Bizarre. This is all news to me and I've been active at AfD for years!
Sionk (
talk) 20:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- So nominators are not allowed to make a recommendation?! That's news to me! postdlf recommended deletion in every way except for the heading "Comment". Do we assume that is a delete recommendation too, or do we wait until it is unambiguously stated?
Sionk (
talk) 15:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- The problem isn't the comment, it was the additional !vote (i.e. the only part which was struck). As much as we don't like to admit such things,
information cascades exist at varying levels of consciousness, and something is communicated by seeing lots of !votes in one direction. --—
Rhododendrites
talk | 21:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- I made it quite clear I was the nominator, so how can this be confusing. I raised a discussion without making a clear recommendation. I find it quite common for the AfD nominator to make their position clear in the discussion.
Sionk (
talk) 21:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. and his/her subsequent comments. -- Bejnar ( talk) 05:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
- 'Delete Per
WP:LIST
The contents of an article that is a stand-alone list should be clear. If the title does not already clarify what the list includes, then the list's lead section should do so. Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list.
No lead to indicate what the criteria for being a member of the list is. Hasteur ( talk) 12:46, 27 June 2014 (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.