Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 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 of the debate was delete, especially considering editors have already come to a consensus on Talk:Grunge music.  howch e  ng   {chat} 23:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

List of Grunge Bands
This page is innaccurate, and the only accurate information in it already appears in the grunge music article. -- LGagnon 15:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete inaccuracy can be fixed, redundancy per other articles is harder to overcome and (the clincher for me) since this article has nothing independent to say, a category would do the job vastly better without dozeins of redlinks to maybe-never-notable bands. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm guessing the inaccurate information is borderline cases: I didn't see any clearly inappropriate bands in the list, and several that are clearly good calls. Having lists like these helps avoid bloat in main articles, and the quality cure is finding clear crieria and insisting on sourcing for claims. --- Charles Stewart 17:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * A few alternative bands that are not grunge, such as The Smashing Pumpkins, are on there, and several post-grunge bands are on there as well (which are not technically grunge). The only good calls I see there are those already on the list in the grunge article. The list there is only of those that were prominent; all others are left to the grunge category. -- LGagnon 01:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll call some borderline cases: Smashing Pumpkins is often classified as grunge, The Jesus Lizard as well, Killdozer (not on either list), Toadies.  What's the criteria for inclusion or exclusion: maybe Chicago bands don't count because they were part of a different movement?  Having a list side by side with a category makes things easier to police, and liosts are better for characterising the fringe of a movement.  --- Charles Stewart 01:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Those bands that are often misclassified as grunge have been disputed before at the grunge article. We came to a consensus that they were not grunge, and that they did not belong on the list there. With that in mind, they should not be in another list claiming that they are grunge. And as far as I can tell, the list doesn't help; it only contradicts the article and category, confusing readers as to which one is telling the truth. And, once again, post-grunge bands do not count as grunge. -- LGagnon 23:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep- add short descriptions. -- JJay 22:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and tidy if need be 80.177.152.156 22:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Just zis Guy Charles Stewart. --Idont Havaname 00:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * (I accidentally voted keep per a delete vote - d'oh!) --Idont Havaname 02:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete Totally redundant, seeing as how this information is already featured on the Grunge music page. This is simply a more slipshod version of what is already clearly stated elsewhere.  WesleyDodds 00:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per WesleyDodds. Leyasu 03:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per WesleyDodds. - Liontamer 21:57, 2 January 2006 (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.