Deletion of List of Folk-blues musicians

Comment: Categorizing musicians into genres is  unless explicitly stated somewhere, and even then there'll be conflicts unless the artist themselves says it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: This list is already a Category:  :Category:Folk-blues musicians, which is what it should remain as.  Should be '''Speedy''' under #A3.  I previously just prodded List of Electric blues musicians.  Perhaps somebody can link an AfD there.  See also List of Juke Joint blues musicians, List of New Orleans blues musicians, List of New York blues musicians, List of Jazz blues musicians, List of Boogie-Woogie musicians, List of Slide guitarists, List of East Coast blues musicians, List of West Coast blues musicians, List of Jump blues musicians, List of Contemporary blues musicians, List of Detroit blues musicians, List of Swamp blues musicians, List of Harmonica blues musicians, List of Blues revival musicians, List of Urban blues musicians, List of Delta blues musicians, List of Chicago blues musicians, List of Blues-rock musicians and probably more created by the
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD)

Comment: First, this list could never be a cat. simply based on the fact that you can only categorize existing articles.  A list can include items that don't (and unfortunately may never) have an article on WP.  Second, ''any'' list of persons would suffer from the same downfalls that are pointed out here.  I agree that there should be a brief description after each item, though.  The third issue is the length of this list, which I believe is mostly attributable to its age.  Unfortunately I do not know enough about this particular topic to know if it can ever be populated.  So what to do; The existance of red-link or unlinked (unlinkable) items  and a heading rules out both #LINK and#A3.  This article (even with recent changes) could still be deleted under .  However, in a sample 500 lists of people only about 1/3 have any sources and several of those would be considered insufficient.  To delete one on this bases means to delete many, many lists.  I hope that everyone here would prefer simple citations as opposed to deletion.  Lastly, if the article does not grow it could be deleted by .  To prove this would take time.  So...The article should be kept to see if it can grow ''and'' be sourced.  If it does then there is no argument against it.  If it does not it should be deleted using  or
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:CSD||WP:OR||WP:N||WP:OR||WP:N)