Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vocal ranges

:{{la|List of vocal ranges}} ([{{fullurl:List of vocal ranges|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vocal ranges}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

This list is completely inaccurate. The terms listed are not vocal ranges but voice types. The terms are related but are essentially different as voice types are classified by many other factors in addition to vocal range. Further, there really are no terms that could go under a "list of vocal ranges" so the list should be deleted. Nrswanson (talk) 16:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Note to closing administrator and discussants: During the course of this AfD, this article has been moved and/or redirected at least twice. The article under consideration is now called List of voice types. Voceditenore (talk) 08:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Rtyq2 (talk) 16:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and consider a name change. It seems it is an adjunct to the infobox on the page, but more comprehensive. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Why should this be kept? As I have pointed out this list is factually inaccurate. Soprano, mezzo-soprano, contralto, tenor, etc. are not vocal ranges but voice types. Further, the only possible name change would be to List of voice types which seems redundant since the voice type article already provides this information. Nrswanson (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• Delete See Below Coments – Excellent points :Nrswanson I can’t argue with you, you’re right. And as this information is already contained in voice type's, no need for any type of merge. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• Nrswanson and Shoessss are missing the original purpose of this article, thanks in part to it being renamed in 2006, then afterwards [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_vocal_ranges&diff=prev&oldid=109090728 edited] by well-intentioned editors to match the new name. Originally the article title was List of opera singers, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_vocal_ranges&oldid=16650779 originally] it was a list of lists, listing lists of opera singers by voice type, such as Contralto#Notable contraltos and Mezzo-soprano#Coloratura mezzo-soprano singers. Note that Opera#See also links here as "List of Opera singers by ranges".

  So the question to answer, not addressed by the rationales above, which are addressing the wrong subject and then accusing the article of not matching it, is whether a list of opera singers organized by voice type, or a list of such lists, is in accordance with our policies and guidelines. Uncle G (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. You are incorrect Uncle G; a list of opera singers was never a part of this article's content. The original title was List of vocal ranges [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_vocal_ranges&oldid=16650779] which was created in 2004. A seperate List of opera singers was deleted/redirected into this article in 2006 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_opera_singers&action=history], although the content of the opera list was not added to this one and the vocal range list not altered much during the time of the merger [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_vocal_ranges&diff=258990650&oldid=46301215]. Further, vocal range/voice type are certainly terms not limmited to opera singers. I therefore fail to see how this issue has any bearing on this discussion. I think we should evaluate the article as it is now, which is not much different from when it was created over fours years ago.Nrswanson (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• Wrong. You can see where this article was renamed from List of opera singers in its edit history. You even linked to the rename edit yourself. Don't be confused by the fact that prior revisions always show up with the current article title, even if the title has changed in the interim.

  What we have is an article that was renamed on the grounds that it was "misnamed", even though its name was List of opera singers and its first sentence at the time was "The following articles contain lists of female opera singers:", which later editors tried to refactor to match the new name that they saw in the new title, that was originally a list of lists (as was explicitly stated in its text), and that is still linked-to as a list of lists from other articles.

  We always take article history into account in deletion discussions, by the way. Otherwise vandals could get articles deleted by slowly vandalising them beyond recognition and then nominating them for deletion. Uncle G (talk) 22:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I completely overlooked the redirect and apologize. Now we are talking two separate issues, joined by a mistake. Regarding a list of opera singers listed by voice type, and titled as such. yes, I would support such a list. However, this is not that list. Concerning changing my opinion on the deletion of this article List of vocal ranges, no, it still stands. As it is now titled and the information it now represents it is not only misleading, it is wrong and contains information already listed in vocal types, where it should be. The redirects currently in place should be eliminated. The articles that are now blue linked to this piece will just to be red linked, until a correct list, with the correct title can be created and posted. Happy to help and or listen to other suggestions. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• So simply renaming this article back to its original title and reverting the changes back to its original content would render it something that you would support? You don't have a rationale for deletion. You have a rationale for cleanup. If ordinary editing tools that every editor with an account has can fix the problem, then it's not a deletion issue, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Uncle G (talk) 22:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - OK, maybe I am being stupid tonight, and this won‘t be the first or last time it happened! But when looking at the history of List of vocal ranges the only name I see is List of vocal ranges. However, like you pointed out I do see where a article labeled List of opera singers was redirected to List of vocal ranges. Am I correct here? If so, what I am saying is delete List of Vocal ranges and start, or restart, a piece labeled List of opera singers. Which I would happily start. ShoesssS ^Talk 02:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
• No. It's not a redirect. It's a page move. Two history entries, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_opera_singers&diff=prev&oldid=55113426 this] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_vocal_ranges&diff=55113425&oldid=46301215 this], result from a page move; and after a page move all of the prior versions of the article appear as if they were always under the new title. (Try looking at old versions of any page that has been renamed.) And it can be renamed back, without needing any administrator tools. You, or any other editor with an account could do it. You could do it right now, during this discussion. (We've long since fixed the {{tls|afd1}} template so that this is feasible. It used not to be.) Happily starting the article would simply comprise your hitting the edit button, and editing the page, once it is then back at its old title. You wouldn't even have to start completely from scratch. Uncle G (talk) 03:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

::::::I'm following you now Uncle G. I wasn't aware that the article history wouldn't show a difference in name. So... the title from 2004- May 2006 was List of opera singers. However, I would argue that the content of the article has never been a "list of opera singers" but a "list of voice types" and the article was therefore improperly titled. The renaming to List of vocal ranges was also bad and did not accurately reflect the content. As it is, I think a list of voice types (which is the article's content both now and historically) is useless per my reasoning above. However, an actual list of opera singers linking to articles on opera singers could have some benefit depending on its basis for inclusion and organization. Its an awefully broad topic and it would need to be developed with thought beyond a mere haphazard list of names. I personally think organizing them under voice type would be less useful than perhaps a chronological organization or a structure linking singers to a particular genre or era of opera such as bel canto or verismo. My only issue with this solution is that the content would be completely new and different from what we have now, making it essentially an entirely different article. My understanding of AFD policy is that an article requiring such an extensive rewrite is deleted unless an enterprising editor steps forward before this discussion is over. Right now I am keeping my vote as delete since the history of this article's content has never actually had a list of opera singers and its content both now and in the past is merely redundant to the content aleady found in the voice type article.Nrswanson (talk) 05:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::Comment: Ah learn something new everyday! Thank you! I made the move, or should I say redirect, back to the original title. ShoesssS ^Talk 23:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I have moved the page to "List of voice types" as this article's content is a list of voice types. These terms are not opera specific so I don't think "List of opera singers" is an accurate or appropriate title. I still think this article is redundant to the voice type article and should be deleted.Nrswanson (talk) 06:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

::Coment - Hello Nrswanson I believe you are fighting a battle after you already won the war :-). I made the reverts as recomended by Uncle G and the title List of vocal ranges was automaticly deleted when the revert took place. So in other words you are asking to delete a title that has already been deleted. I believe that was the point Uncle G was trying to make, but wanted us to find this out on our own for the next time we run accross this situation. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as redundant to the navbox that accompanies the page - assuming this is now/still "List of voice types". P.S. It's not a good idea to change article titles in the middle of an Afd. - --Kleinzach 13:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• Keep or redirect to Voice type. The problem with the naming of the article has now been fixed. Mdwh (talk) 14:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment This article has now been moved to List of voice types. Note that it really is not a good idea to re-name and redirect articles during an AfD, especially twice! It makes the discussion very confusing both for the particpants and for the closing administrator. Independent lists of the type "List of operatic baritones", "List of operatic sopranos", etc. do not exist and would be extremely impractical. Wikipedia has at least 1500 of biographies of opera singers with nearly 700 for operatic sopranos alone. Presumably they are all notable since they have articles in Wikipedia. The "Voice type" articles do mention some examples of singers of each type, but that is not their main purpose or content. They are to explain the meaning of the various terms used for voice types and the factors that go into typing a voice. As for the Opera#See_also - "List of Opera singers by ranges", it is misleadingly phrased both in terms of "range" vs. "type" and in terms of what it means. I take it to mean lists of types of opera singer voices, not lists of actual opera singers. So what is the purpose of this article now? It contains no actual information, it is largely, but not completely redundant to its own navbox. But in its present revised form could serve as a useful target for Opera#See_also - "List of voice types". Voceditenore (talk) 08:03, 22 December 2008 (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.