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 keep. Haukur (talk) 11:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of G-funk musicians[edit]

List of G-funk musicians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Has been tagged for lack of reliable sources and citations for more than a decade. Talk section indicates lots of faulty entries, which cannot be verified to be true or false. If I let the deletionist in me speak up I'd say get rid of this listcruft. ronaz^Talk! 12:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - G-Funk is a well-known, notable musical style. Per WP:LISTN what we need to sustain the notability of this article are reliable sources showing that G-funk musicians are notable as a group (e.g., sources that list them). This source discusses a number of G-Funk artists as a group, as does this, as does this. As such WP:LISTN is met and this appears to be notable as a list. Faulty/unreferenced listings should be deleted, but unless this is really a WP:TNT situation (and I don't think it is) then we should simply keep and improve. FOARP (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am certainly not questioning the notability of the style. There, notability is established. The argument I am trying to make is nobody has cared enough about the article to improve it in the last 11 years. Should we really want to keep around the article in the state it is in? ronaz^Talk! 12:27, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See: WP:NEGLECT, and also WP:NOWORK. Basically if you think this list should be improved . . . then improve it? FOARP (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not really my subject, I'm afraid and I must say I wasn't aware of these specific bits of policy. I understand now no work for a decade+ isn't an argument.ronaz^Talk! 09:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As mentioned above, the article needs improvement, not deletion. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2019 (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.