Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists of people: Difference between revisions

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. czar 03:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of political dissidents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

So this list doesn't have any strict criteria, includes a lot of people, and lead to a lot of broad interpretation that clearly violates WP:BLP in a number of cases -- suggesting rather minor figures are political dissidents. As an international list, this could be almost infinite -- for example, by exercising free speech in the U.S. you could enter the list as its currently scoped. I am not seeing a lot of value in keeping this as such -- its not particularly notable, would be useful regime by regime, perhaps... but as an international list its close to useless, and better served by a category. Sadads (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete I have kept this list on my watchlist for a while due to its complex and vague criteria, including "questioning or criticizing government policy or the dominant political faction" – this is a key element of a democracy! It is also made difficult to interpret in that the listed countries' regimes have changed significantly in history; for example, both Adolf Hitler (a Nazi) and Liselotte Herrmann (a member of the German resistance to Nazism) are mentioned under the label "Germany". Some sections are objectively historically inaccurate, including the label "Czech Republic", which mentions Václav Havel, a dissident of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic rather than the modern-day republic. Articles that get their point across far better include Soviet dissidents, which is specifically dedicated to dissidents of the Soviet ideology, rather than the country of "Russia". Cilidus (talk) 01:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 02:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 02:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 02:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Blow to smithereens I only assessed the American names, but the mish-mash of civil rights activist MLK Jr. with terrorist Ted Kaczynski with Native American leader Chief Joseph with singer-songwriter Pete Seeger with falsely accused immigrants Sacco and Vanzetti with cult leader Lyndon LaRouche is an utter embarassment. This sort of indiscriminate context-free listing is disgraceful. Reywas92^Talk 06:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a list without objective inclusion criteria. As mentioned above, lists for people considered dissidents from specific regimes or ideologies are workable, but a generic list like this is going to be forever riddled with BLP, NPOV and potentially OR issues. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 11:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no objective inclusion criteria, no context for inclusion in the list, and no sources cited for most entries. Peter James (talk) 11:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Disgraceful. What’s with the sources by the way? This creator possibly has his own point of view and violates Wikipedia’s rule of neutrality. From Burgundian Feudalism (talk) 12:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page is over 15 years old and has been edited periodically since then; there is no one "creator". postdlf (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. We have a well populated Category:Dissidents structure, mostly organized into subcategories by nationality. The subheaders here aim towards that structure, but perhaps this would be better replaced by a list of lists. postdlf (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Postdlf: I think the category structure is more than reasonable to maintain -- I am not seeing any clear need to maintain a list of lists though? Sadads (talk) 16:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Particularly since many of the complaints about this list are the lack of context or sourcing, categories can provide neither but annotated and referenced lists can, and having one master index for such lists would be a typical and helpful well to organize that into one jumping off point in article space. postdlf (talk) 19:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      So there is only one other list I can find right now (List_of_Singaporean_dissidents) -- and its not much better than this list -- so I am not seeing a natural community around doing this -- if there is something I am missing, I could see trying to rebuild in that direction, Sadads (talk) 20:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is also List of Chinese dissidents, which is a little more helpful (providing context such as year of detainment, allegations, sentence), though a list of political dissidents which only included links to these two lists still would not be all that useful. Cilidus (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as clearly this list is far from objective. I assess American names and find the likes of terrorist Kacynski on the same list with heroes such as John Brown and MLK. I also assess Indonesian names and found a criminal scholar along with one of the heroes of Indonesian independence. I also see Adolf Hitler on the list along with Martin Luther. This list have no clear criteria at all. SunDawn (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete based on current content. Bare lists of names organized by country don't provide any context to readers, such as what era the person lived in, which regime they were dissidents against, and why the person is classified as a dissident. As mentioned by Cilidus above, Vaclav Havel was a dissident against Czechoslovakia, although the article lists him as a dissident against the Czech Republic, which he was not. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:INDISCRIMINATE If this were to approach comprehensiveness, it would be enormous. The criteria is extremely broad and vague - "questioning or criticizing government policy" would apply to basically every politician in countries where the dominant faction/party at the helm changes hands every few years, and dozens of people even from places where there isn't any turnover. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per arguments raised: 1) a full list would get too long. 2) Unclear criteria. Comment @those who like the list: there may be (notable and) established political science definitions of dissidence, or even a database. Maybe from a university, perhaps from political freedom organisations like Amnesty International, or other NGOs. No prejudice against creating country/regime-based lists based on such a definition. ("Dissidents of the Assad regime on the University of Whatsit's list of political resistance" / "List of resistors of the Nazi regime considered Righteous Among the Nations")Trimton (talk) 10:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • a regime being defined as a period with the same constitution or the same de facto functioning of the state. sometimes a country has several regimes over time, e. g. Fifth French Republic, Spain under Franco. Sometimes only one, e. g. German Democratic Republic etc. Trimton (talk) 10:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, but consider merging some of the longer sections into existing articles. Batmanthe8th (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Indiscriminate list with no clear criteria for inclusion. The inclusion of Martin Luther, Karl Marx, the Brothers Grimm, and Hitler all being lumped together on the same list under "Germany" is... strange to say the least. Egsan Bacon (talk) 23:16, 23 April 2021 (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.

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. See also the precedent set by recent deletions of "List of artists influenced by X": Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of artists influenced by Beyoncé contains a list. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of people influenced by Ayn Rand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This list is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Do we really need a list of A-Z people who were "influenced" by this person? What do we mean by "influenced" anyway? Any qualitative/quantitative analysis? To what extent? Whoever claimed they were "influenced" by this person can be mentioned in-depth at that person's article without this arbitrary list. HĐ (talk) 15:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 15:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 15:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 15:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with the policies cited and arguments expressed by nominator. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am in resounding agreement by the nominator and their reasons. Timmccloud (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As above. If such a list is needed it can be added to her page. Athel cb (talk) 16:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per above. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep unless there is a better argument for deletion. This list meets all the WP:LISTPEOPLE criteria. There are sources that discuss the topic of the list; several are in the Works Cited section of the article's references. It is not at all indiscriminate: the inclusion criteria are explicitly defined at the top of the list and every entry is sourced in support of one or more of those criteria. It also ought to be obvious that stuffing a 34Kb list into a biographical article (that is already over 90Kb) is a bad idea. --RL0919 (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me the definition of "influenced by" at the top of the list comes off as WP:OR--that is a subjective opinion on what it means by "influenced by", and that is not NPOV. To note, I do not recommend merging all these names into the "Ayn Rand" article. What is the purpose of this list anyways... to prove that Mrs. Rand had such a huge so-called influence? Why isn't there an exhaustive collective of lists of people influenced by [insert name here], who have had even more reputation and recognition than Mrs. Rand (to note--this is the first time I have ever heard of her)? HĐ (talk) 01:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The list criteria ask for the listed person's self-identification. I'm not sure how that is POV, but in any case it is hardly WP:INDISCRIMINATE as you originally alleged. There are other "influenced by" lists (as you well know, having nominated several recently). The examples that originally inspired this one were List of writers influenced by Aristotle and List of thinkers influenced by deconstruction. I did not mention these because it would have drawn the obvious WP:OTHERSTUFF retort. There are other similar non-people lists, such as Works inspired by J. R. R. Tolkien. I assume many of those exist for the same reason this one does: as WP:Subarticles to prevent large lists from being a nuisance in the main article. There are thousands of lists that are split out of biographical articles for similar reasons, such as the contents of Category:Actor filmographies, Category:Discographies, Category:Bibliographies of people, etc. That there are not so many influence lists is probably due to the relative ability to source the content. --RL0919 (talk) 02:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per above. As long as the list is well sourced it should stay.--Nemov (talk) 18:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A completely arbitrary list. "People"? Come on, what's next? List of people influenced by Jesus or List of people influenced by Muhammad? The editors probably have to create a prose article detailing how he inspired people, instead of this trivial list of names (WP:LISTCRUFT). Anyway, Works inspired by J. R. R. Tolkien is a prose article. Bluesatellite (talk) 12:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• As I've already voted I won't vote again. I'll just comment that I fully agree with what Bluesatellite says immediately above (apart from noting that referring to Ayn Rand as"he" doesn't suggest a deep knowledge of her writing). As it stands the list is very unsatisfactory in another way, that it provides no evidence that the people listed were actually influenced by Ayn Rand. I haven't followed all the links, and maybe I was unlucky, but four out of the six I checked make no mention of Ayn Rand in the linked articles. Athel cb (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The list attempts to put forth criteria for inclusion, which is generally a good thing, but here it ends up being synthesis. Three different things are being called "influence"; the list is essentially putting forth a conclusion that they are equivalent. XOR'easter (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bluesatellite and WP:SOAP. Come on, this is run of the mill. We don't even have a List of people influenced by Bertrand Russell. Bearian (talk) 01:53, 19 April 2021 (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.

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 redirect to List of Major League Baseball no-hitters#San Diego Padres. There is certainly no consensus to keep this.

However, there is a split between merging to List of San Diego Padres team records and redirect to List of Major League Baseball no-hitters#San Diego Padres as an WP:ATD.

Number-wise, redirection is at a slight advantage. Reading the elaboration of merge !votes (only one has it), those !votes should read more like "merge to preserve the information somewhere", so they would be compatible to a redirect to a list article with the information already. In addition, after the first redirect suggestion, no more merge suggestions have appeared, so it looks like redirection is the better WP:ATD when one is given the choice between merging and redirection.

If the information on the target article is moved, the redirection target can certainly be changed. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 08:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of San Diego Padres no-hitters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Tampa Bay Rays no-hitters, a list of one item is deemed not worthy of a stand-alone article. Canuck^{89 (Speak with me)} 03:19, April 10, 2021 (UTC) 03:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:LISTN, as one item is neither a group nor set.—Bagumba (talk) 03:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of San Diego Padres team records. Seems logical to me to keep this around somewhere, but a one-item list is not a proper list. Hog Farm _Talk 04:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Hog Farm. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. One list entry is not a list. Ajf773 (talk) 10:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Hog Farm. SportingFlyer T·C 12:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment re: potential merge Appreciate attempt to WP:PRESERVE, but merging to List of San Diego Padres team records is awkward. What is the record? A convoluted "Fewest hits allowed, complete game"? Even if the record is listed, it's trivial to merge in the current table, when only the record holder, Musgrove, is relevant. No similar precedent with List of Tampa Bay Rays no-hitters or any of the other similar page deleted in the last RfD.—Bagumba (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This page is unsourced, and not worth merging. It seems to me useful prose should be placed at History of the San Diego Padres, where the prior drought can be put in context and the near misses mentioned. Some history is in this New York Times article. Or just create San Diego Padres no-hitters, not a list.—Bagumba (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List_of_Major_League_Baseball_no-hitters#San Diego Padres -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List_of_Major_League_Baseball_no-hitters#San Diego Padres, where it is already covered. The merge, while a good suggestion, is not necessary since the information already exists elsewhere. No need for a single entry list. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It seems undue that there is a dedicated section List_of_Major_League_Baseball_no-hitters#Teams_with_only_a_single_no–hitter, where San Diego is a subsection. Why single out teams with only one no-hitter when the the general MLB list is already sortable by team?—Bagumba (talk) 01:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bagumba:, feel free to raise that issue on the talk page for that article. This AfD is not the appropriate venue for that. If the information is going to be there, I think a redirect is appropriate. Smartyllama (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Major League Baseball no-hitters#San Diego Padres, where that information already appears. If people think that information violates WP:UNDUE, they can take it up at the talk page for that article, not at this AfD. If the information is going to stay there, this should redirect there (as is done for the Rays page the nominator referred to.) (edit: that parenthetical part is incorrect, the template of no-hitters by team links to that page directly. This does not change my opinion.) If consensus at that article is to delete the information, I would reconsider my !vote but this is not the appropriate venue to discuss that, and if it's there, a redirect is appropriate. Smartyllama (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Page is standard for MLB franchises and will grow in time. Sources should be added, but feels unproductive to delete in light of other similar pages that clearly meet the standard. Baseballtom (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although you are confident it will "grow in time", it took over 50 years for the Padres to record their first no-hitter, who's to say it won't take as long for a second to occur, leaving this as a list of one item for decades.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- Fails LISTN. Although we shouldn't even need to cite policy for this one, one entry is not a list by definition.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Major League Baseball no-hitters#San Diego Padres. I'm pleased for them. But it's still a list of one. --Jameboy (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2021 (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.

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 merge to Cultural impact of Madonna. Consensus is that the topic covered merits inclusion, however the list itself does not. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of artists influenced by Madonna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Basically just an arbitrary list. Are we counting people who have worn her conical bra? Or who remixed her tracks? This could be turned into an article titled "Madonna's influence on popular culture" or something like that but this list is just ridiculous. Noah ^💬 20:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Noah ^💬 20:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:This list is about people from/in the entertainment industry influenced by Madonna, with commentaries (from others or by them) on that and examples. Not those who "have worn her conical bra" or "remixed her tracks". I know, is not the perfect list and grammar can be improved but mostly both text and examples are supported by reliable sources (and those who aren't can be replaced or re-verify the poorly additions). The list doesn't need be neither renamed because her influence on others (entertainers) is a topic developed extensively not only by pundits but by intellectuals. All here is in those context and IMHO meets many requirements for an existence beyond the concern expressed by nominator. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 21:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Just commenting that the article Cultural impact of Madonna exists. MarkZusab (talk) 22:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True. But if this a suggestion for merge content, I would oppose to that idea. Because that article is mostly about her not "her on others". And considering the Cultural impact of Madonna could be expanded with more academic topics such as "Globalization", "Race", "Gender", "Multiculturalism" etc (I do not doubt I could help to develop those topics) with reviews from authorities authors. Also, I'm not sure if the nominator is aware that there is others "list of artists influenced by" (e,g Michael Jackson) to have a general picture on these type of lists. Regards, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Second comment to list existing articles of the same type:

• List of artists influenced by Beyoncé
• List of artists influenced by Christina Aguilera
• List of artists influenced by Eminem
• List of artists influenced by Janet Jackson
• List of artists influenced by Michael Jackson
• List of celebrities influenced by Selena

MarkZusab (talk) 23:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing a complete list. I noticed nominator was cited in Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk in regards the similar list for Taylor Swift. I would like hear back something from him and not see this like a cherry-pick nomination of only one list (Madonna). Although all these lists contains errors and I know other users cited WP:OTHERSTUFFEXITS to justify the creation of new lists, in defense of artists such as Michael Jackson or Madonna, they are constantly cited by performers around the world as an influence no matters the decade. That's an important part of their literature and considering their main articles are more than extensive, this type of lists brings readers a general perspective. In the very near future, I'll work to find better sources or remove poorly additions if this help. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I note the extra lists in the comment by MarkZusab. Considering that no one article on Wikipedia sets a precedent for any other aticle, and that listing of articles for comparison purposes at AfD is discouraged, have they been brought here as additions to this AfD? If so they are not corectly nominated, neither here, nor in the individual articles. If not, then what is the purpose of bringing them here, please? Fiddle Faddle 08:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I see a kinda bad rationale from the nominator, as none of the content on that page talking about cone bra or remixes of her songs, not even a single mention. I don't know whether he/she just being ironic tho. I suggest to make it a WP:MULTIAFD that encompases all of those lists as pointed out by MarkZusab above. I mean, if we want to delete this topic for the biggest woman in music industry, then I just don't see why more obscure names such as Aguilera or Selena deserve one. Let the community decide once for all. Bluesatellite (talk) 05:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I could fails under WP:OTHERSTUFFS but seems pretty unlikely overlook the rest of the lists with massive maintaince edits. After all, if we're talking about this like an "arbitrary list", the rest of them have the same format: lists and lists of examples. Comparison with avanced texts like "Cultural impact of" are more disputable. In her case I know there are poorly additions, and that's also happens because everyone can edit Wikipedia but problems like this can't overshadow the subject IMHO, and set a template could help to warn these issues like the MJ-list beyond a bureaucratic step. Anyway, I'll respect final results and if a WP:MULTIAFD is open, is more understandable. Regards, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 06:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This article is more complex than a simple list. I do not see overall deletion or retention as a valid outcome. Instead I see a two part solution

1. Split this article into two, part one with the very detailed and likely notable prose background, but no list, and part two the list with a brief synopsis as the lede and list heading. The first might be titled alomg the lines of Madonna's influence on other performers, the second, the actual list, retains the current title.
2. Keep the new (prose) article for all the standard reasons of notability, referencing etc, and then consider whether the list per se is valid here and either make a separate nomination for AfD or leave it alone, giving the dust here some time to settle.

I am not yet convinced that the list itself is other than an indiscriminate collection of stuff, but I believe that should form a separate discussion from this rather broader article.

I think the set of other lists brought here above as examples should be set apart from this deletion discussiomn. They are obviously not included within it. It os procedurally too late to add them and each deserves its own consideration, which consderation includes no action taken. Fiddle Faddle 11:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Sections "Background", "Context and analysis", and "Legacy" are WP:CFORK and can be reasonably incorporated into existing articles, either Madonna or Cultural impact of Madonna. The definitions of what it means by "being influenced by Madonna", as explained in the "Definition" section, is straight-up WP:OR. I do not see a point of including each-and-every artist who has mentioned Madonna by name in interviews. This is WP:UNDUE and WP:POINT as its finest. HĐ (talk) 02:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have no words on this. I think that these kind of lists are kind of arbitrary so maybe deleting this is recommended to me. ADTN1210 (talk) 21:22, April 10, 2021 (UTC)
• Delete and rescue some of the content to Cultural impact of Madonna. There's still no need to list each and every name exists. We should focus on "how" (prose) rather than an endless list of "who". Bluesatellite (talk) 05:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the meantime, I would like someone from WikiProject Madonna to rescue necessary information from this list to "Cultural impact of Madonna" (although I am afraid what is included in this list is already in that article, making it CFORK). HĐ (talk) 06:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on that in this section. The grammar, wordy sentences etc will be fixed ASAP by other members (maybe Bluesatellite). Thanks --Apoxyomenus (talk) 06:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, this reminds me of some lists a while back regarding TV performances of notable artists, of course they are going to appear at more live shows. Juts like Madonna and other singers have influences generations but we are not looking for a grocery lists with a small lead. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• comment I do not oppose deleting this article. I only fear that voting for this may result in its deletion, while others like it possibly may not end up deleted. So if the other ones go and if this comment can then be used as a “delete” vote.TruthGuardians (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just a POV fancruft used for POV pushing and providing a false notion that "everyone has been influenced by my favorite artist". We don't need that here. TolWol56 (talk) 02:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Partially Merge to Cultural impact of Madonna and discard the list. This article has some solid high-level research on Madonna's widespread influence, but much of it is repeated from Cultural impact of Madonna. Any unique thematic material from this list article can be merged over there. Otherwise the list of people suffers from the WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE problems and is not particularly informative. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Just to clarify, now it's looks like we have "repeated" parts from Cultural impact of Madonna with the list, because I recently transfer the main idea-references into the section "Madonna's influence on others performers" (Nota bene, grammar errors, missing refs etc will be corrected, meanwhile template "under construction" has been placed). In regards the possibility of WP:CFORK pointed out by HD: I'm making sure don't have copy-paste info from the main article or inside the same article. Literature is vast, so I'm pretty sure that problem couldn't actually exists, while BLP briefly explain those points. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 08:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Partial merge per Doomsdayer520. It seems that Apoxyomenus, in their Herculean undertaking to revamp the article Cultural impact of Madonna, has already done this. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just like other similar lists nominated recently, this is yet another barely conclusive list if we look at the WP:OR done here. LearnIndology (talk) 04:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Cultural impact of Madonna: topic of "artists influenced by" is unsuited to a rigorous and objective selective criteria, and not useful to readers (how do we determine which, say, ten artists are the most influenced or most important who were influenced). However, the sources and prose content is useful. If all of it that's due weight to Madonna is already in the "Cultural impact" article (I can't see that it is), and anything primarily about another artist is at that artist's article, then we can delete. — Bilorv (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as fancruft. All the similar articles listed above have been deleted. Merge any salvageable content to the cultural impact article. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The very nature of this article is questionable because being influenced by Madonna has such a broad spectrum; many artists can say that they were influenced but what is a meaningful extent? Was Drake meaningfully influenced by her? How about a lil Kim? For an article titled as a list, it isn't just a list but a lot of background that suitable elsewhere in wikipedia. Merge what we can with Cultural impact of Madonna. Ew3234 (talk) 01:49, 24 April 2021 (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.