Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of streetpunk bands

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 No consensus. Pascal.Tesson 00:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of streetpunk bands

These lists of bands are hard to maintain and verify, and categories can do the job. Lots of precedent is found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of nu metal musical groups, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of melodic death metal bands and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of grindcore bands. Punkmorten 09:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nom. List will almost certainly remain incomplete, and a genre like "streetpunk" is really too amorphous and vague for a list. A category would be better. Lankiveil 12:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep, as per norm. Almost every music genre has a list of notable artists. Either keep them all or delete them all and prevent the creation of any lists of musicians. There is no reason to single out the streetpunk list for deletion, when (as of this minute) there are 114 similar lists.Spylab 14:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See also the related AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Streetpunk. Deor 18:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with a category. Being a band of a certain genre is a loose inclusion criteria to me Corpx 19:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lankiveil and Corpx. I can't believe people seriously think that "amorphous and vague" categories are a good thing. Kappa 04:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bogus grounds for deletion. If these are really hard to verify, then they should not go into categories either. Systematic bias. "hard to maintain" is no reason for deletion. Hard to verify is not good enough. Categories being better than lists is not founded in any policy or guideline. Yet another waste of the AFD process. (Mind meal 11:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Delete and replace with a category. It is an unstructured list. Wikipedia is not a loose compendium of links. One of the things about categories that is suitable for hard to define genres is that the inclusion in the category can be justified in depth on the band's discussion page if need be. By Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:NOT, categories are better than unstructured lists. Hu 18:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh, yeah. About that Hu, see WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information states 5 criteria for what constitues indiscriminate collection of information. See, what you cited doesn't say what you say it does. Please show everyone where WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information states that categories are better than unstructured lists. See, everyone else here also has eyes. And what you say that section says and what it actually says do not match up. That is a surprise,by the way. I am shocked. I propose Hu's vote be discounted, for they have failed to read the very policy they have cited. I'm tempted to call a duck a duck here, but we'll just say you must be confused. Unless, of course, you can show us where it says in the section they cited that categories are in fact superior to any list! Do you even know what you are citing ever? I'm dead serious, you do this so often. You need to start voting according to what current guidelines and policy actually do say, otherwise you shouldn't be voting at all. Hu is guilty of WP:POINT. In fact Hu, WP:NOT doesn't even mention the words "unstructered list". You are out to prove a point, not out to uphold policy. I'll take no response as an admission that it says that nowhere, and your vote will be discarded accordingly. Come to think of it, where does it say anywhere something about these "unstructured lists" you keep referring to? Certainly not at WP:LIST. Have you ever even read the guideline for what is needed for a list to exist there? No, no you have not. (Mind meal 21:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Absence of a response is not admission of anything. There are many reasons for not making a response, one of which might be not having read the demand for a response. In this case, at this time, I choose to not make a response other than what I have already made here clarifying that absence of a response is not admission of anything. Hu 02:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was hilarious! (Mind meal 03:30, 30 July 2007 (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.