Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Canadian post-grunge 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 delete. It seems that nobody actually wants to keep this, despite the lengthy discussion?  Sandstein  16:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

List of Canadian post-grunge bands

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This page has multiple issues and has had the "multiple issues" template for over a year. It has no sources, and the stated inclusion criteria is subjective and arbitrary. Shelbystripes (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: fails second point of WP:LISTPEOPLE and without any verifiable sources that state that these bands have any link to post-grunge, fails WP:NOR as well. In its current state it's just going to be a battleground for genre warriors without actually providing any particularly useful information. Richard3120 (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - Eh. Well, the sources referenced by WP:LISTPEOPLE's second bullet point don't necessarily have to be cited in the article. If you visit a random list of bands, say, odds are most of the entries you see will not have sources. Ideally they all would, but because lists are commonly restricted to items with Wikipedia articles, the presumption is that the requisite sources can also be found in the band's article. If it's just a matter of pulling a reference from one article into another, that's not a great reason for deletion. On its face, this seems like a reasonable list. If someone were to start splitting up List of post-grunge bands into country-based sublists, then eh. The problem, however, is that it's not a necessary or consistent convention to do so, and this anomaly looks to be based entirely on an unreliable source per the lead. Allmusic's genres in the sidebar are not considered reliable sources. The content of the staff-written biographies can be, but this list clearly came from the sidebar (e.g. Artificial Joy Club's entry doesn't mention post-grunge except for there). Given it's only based on that one source, and given it's an unnecessary spin-out of the main list, it doesn't quite seem worth keeping. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 21:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't spot that reference "according to AllMusic" in the text - I was looking for references down the bottom of the page. But as you say, if the one source used isn't considered reliable by Wikipedia standards, we would need to find the reference to post-grunge from elsewhere. Richard3120 (talk) 23:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. If this is not a valid classification of the listed bands, then Category:Canadian post-grunge groups will need to be deleted as well. postdlf (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Postdlf, I disagree with your logic. The problem is not that such an article can't ever exist, it's that the article currently fails multiple Wikipedia standards and there's no one rushing to improve it.  Actually, the fact that a category exists and duplicates the current effort of this article is another reason to delete this article.  Categories are easier to maintain, because whether or not a band belongs in a category is discussed and maintained on each band's article based on that article's content.  This article in its current form offers nothing, except a list that duplicates the category page, and there's no one maintaining the article.  Shelbystripes (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not how any of this works. On category "duplication", see WP:NOTDUP. Re: no one's working on it, see WP:NOEFFORT, WP:NOTCLEANUP, and deletion policy at WP:ATD. We do not delete articles based on their current state, but rather based on their potential; this is also integral to deletion procedure at WP:BEFORE. postdlf (talk) 22:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Postdlf, on the topic of "potential", the page has been flagged as having "multiple issues" for over a year per WP:ATD-T, which explicitly notes that tags are not permanent solutions. If you're saying that you are ready to improve this page and actually fix its deficiencies, or you know a specific editor who will, then I'll withdraw my delete request. Otherwise, this is an article that has no reliable sources to verify notability, and thus clearly fails WP:LISTPEOPLE, and there is absolutely nothing in WP:NOEFFORT or WP:ATD to suggest that it's inappropriate to delete a page in this case. The problem is not just that the page could use improvement; it's that the page is currently fatally flawed by making assertions unsupported by reliable sources, and I can't just remove the flawed content because that content is literally the entire page.  There's nothing left if you try to surgically remove the problematic parts of the article.  The article should be deleted because it has no content that is appropriate for Wikipedia, and nobody is proposing to add any. Shelbystripes (talk) 03:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The talk page for this list doesn't even exist. So I can also say there's been "no effort" at raising substantive criticism or proposing solutions prior to starting this AFD, just apparently drive-by tagging done years ago. You're also conflating verifiability with notability, or maybe just being sloppy with the terms you're using. There's not an argument presented here that these bands are not notable or that post-grunge is not notable. The question you're raising is whether the classification of these bands as post-grunge is verifiable, and you are again only talking about the present state of the article, not whether sources can be found that verify the content. The content is a problem not merely for being unsourced, but only if it is unsourceable. postdlf (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I suppose I should have been clearer. I meant to concede that someone could step up and convince me this topic is notable, in the same sense that any page could be notable if someone produced evidence of notability.  I have in the past changed my mind on notability when someone made an effort to persuade me the page wsa notable.  But nobody's doing that.  I don't find it notable and nobody is stepping up to argue that it is.  You're not even arguing it's notable, you're just arguing over technicalities and asserting that a similar category should also be deleted (which is inappropriate and outside the scope of this AfD).  Are you actually arguing that this page is notable?  If not, and nobody else is, then I guess for clarity I should stop leaving the door open to hypothetical possibilities and just declare, I don't think this topic is notable enough to warrant an article.  The fact that someone could hypothetically come along in the future and argue that a page is notable, is not a valid reason to keep it. Shelbystripes (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No one argued notability because no one raised that as a deletion argument, as I noted above. What exactly is the argument there that relates to this list? What are you viewing as the "topic", and what per WP:BEFORE did you do to assess its notability or lack thereof? postdlf (talk) 22:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Postdif, you're making the point that the category and list serve different purposes and thus do not duplicate each other (NOTDUP), and yet you're saying that deletion of one means the other "needs" to be deleted, too. That's another side of the same [many-sided] coin. We don't address deletion of categories here, and the existence of a category isn't predicated on a corresponding list just like the existence of a list is not predicated on the existence (or non-existence) of a corresponding category. There are plenty of categories that do not have (and should not have) corresponding list articles. Also, suggesting deletion because there's practically no viable content is not the same as AfD being used for cleanup. If I created this article and just listed "My friend Bob" and "Bilbo Baggins", you could still say "AfD isn't cleanup, and it's a notable topic" but there would be no content to save. Here, too, we have a list based on a single unreliable source. That's worse than it having no sources at all, to me anyway, as there would be room to have an open mind about what sources the article creator might've used, but if we know what was used and it's unreliable, that's about all there is to it. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 01:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Whether deleting the list means also deleting the category depends on why the list is deleted. I've frequently seen people claim a list is "OR and unverifiable" but simultaneously say "the category is fine", which is incoherent. The only difference between a list and a category on the same concept is presentation format, so if we cannot verify that a band is post-grunge for purposes of a list we cannot do it for purposes of a category either. If you're simply making a WP:TNT argument but not challenging the very concept of the list, then one editing solution would be to just replace the current content of the list with the content of the category and then go from there (though pointing out that the only source presently cited is not reliable is far different from saying there are no sources that would verify any of these entries, that in a finished list, none of this content would be there; see policy at WP:PRESERVE). Or this could have been redirected to List of post-grunge bands pending further discussion on splitting by country. Jumping to AFD rather than trying any of these other means of content development is simply not a constructive use of anyone's time nor consistent with policy. postdlf (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lists of bands by nationality are fine, as are lists of bands by genre — but lists of bands constrained for both nationality and genre aren't useful. Yes, a band's inclusion in any list should always be supported by a proper source — but since the sourcing for a category is (or should be) located directly in the articles contained in the category, the question of whether the category should exist or not is entirely separate from whether the list is needed or not. Bearcat (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2016 (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.