Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of band name etymologies (2nd nomination)


 * 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. RL0919 (talk) 03:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

List of band name etymologies
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Extreme violation of WP:IINFO, WP:SALAT, WP:V. Nearly every band that ever existed (and isn't just named after one or more of the members; e.g. Crosby, Stills & Nash, Zac Brown Band) is going to have some origin story to their name. In cases where the name's origin is verifiable, that info should already be present in the band's article (or, if the name is widely known to be the creation of an outside party; e.g., "our manager suggested it", then it can also be noted on the manager's page if they have an article).

This list is extremely long and bloated, with no clear criterion as to which band should be included. For instance, The Chicks were originally named after a Little Feat song. Nickelback was named after the amount of change given at Starbucks. Grand Funk Railroad was a pun on a railroad line. Diamond Rio was named after a truck. Florida Georgia Line from the states of which the two members are natives. Blue Öyster Cult came from an anagram of a beer. Lady A came from the band being virtue-signaling hacks that stole the name of a far more talented black woman. None of those are on the list, and those are hardly obscure bands.

The sourcing is all over the place too, ranging from fansites to tourism bureaus to YouTube videos. Some details are extremely fancrufty, such as the Alice Cooper entry; and the Bad Religion entry is just a quote-dump. Quite a few aren't even sourced at all. Even limiting it to the ones that have decent sourcing, this list is still horrendously long and indiscriminate.

While the concept of "how bands get their names" is discussed often, there's no set pattern to it. Inspiration can strike from literally anywhere. The last AFD for this list way back in 2007 called for a consensus to keep per the existence of List of bands named after places, List of band names with date references, and List of eponymous albums, all of which were eventually deleted anyway.

tl;dr: This list is hopelessly out of control and indiscriminate. If there is a topic worth writing about, then WP:TNT needs to be applied. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Lists of people. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. Credit where due, "The band consists of two members, and each one plays a cello" is a hilarious sentence to me, but that does not save a WP article. QuietHere (talk) 02:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete This is insane to compile in one place, lots of negligibly notable bands cluttering up a list that's missing many well known names. Every band's article ought to have this information but I see no reason why there should be an attempt to put them together. Reywas92Talk 04:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep because learning new information like this on Wikipedia is both educational and entertaining. Sure it's incomplete but that doesn't mean it has to go. The internet is endless and there's no need to make it smaller by deleting things. Mtjaws (talk) 04:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:ILIKEIT, WP:USEFUL, WP:INTERESTING, WP:PLEASEDONT, WP:NOHARM. Congratulations, you just got a bingo on your Arguments to Avoid bingo card. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: I think TPH made a solid reasoning why this should go. Article is a complete mess, sourcing is inconsistent, and some of the links are unreliable. Any solidly sourced etymologies are already in the band's own articles where they belong. A list like this with them all together feels like trivia cruft and a relic of a Wikipedia long gone. Some band names just don't have an important story, some are just picked out of thin air, sometimes bands become so sick of being asked what their name means that they make up a fake story or regularly change the etymology whenever asked (Toto and Chumbawamba both did this). Are we sure any of these sourced etymologies aren't the latter case? Several examples on this page like Anamanaguchi and 10cc have different, conflicting explanations listed. Which one is the right one? In any case, this is a good idea for a Sporcle quiz or a Mental Floss article or a Name Explain video. But not as a Wikipedia page, and certainly not the way it looks and is formatted now. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 05:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As an aside, with regards to Mhawk10's argument here: I understand that lists, as a general concept, have a purpose on Wikipedia. But we're not debating the general concept of the list article, we're talking about this one article and how it's an indiscriminate poorly sourced mess. If this is to be kept - even though I voted delete, I don't really mind if it stays - effort needs to be made at untangling it. Something like the complete, heavily sourced overhaul that was done to List of one-hit wonders in the United States a few years ago could be done here. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 13:41, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article passes WP:NLIST, as multiple independent reliable sources have significantly covered the topic of the etymology/origins of band names as a group. These include The Band Name Book, Rock Band Name Origins, The Big Book of Rock & Roll Names, From ABBA to ZZ Top: How Rock Bands Got Their Names, and others. That guideline notes [t]he entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been, and WP:LISTCRIT allows for editors to set strict inclusion criteria by consensus. The actual policy on deletion notes that [i]f editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. If the reason for deletion is that the selection criteria is non-existent, it seems rather uncompelling absent attempts to set appropriate selection criteria first. And, as far as I can tell, the nominator did not do this before actually bringing this article here. We're making a mistake if we are to delete the list when it is reasonable that editing the list along the lines of proper inclusion criteria (for example, that a band origin can only be included if the origin is the subject of multiple independent RS) would be feasible. It is, and deletion makes no sense here. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Like Doc Strange pointed out above, there is no real criterion that could be applied given that many band name origin stories are random, not noteworthy, or even self-contradictory. Which ones would be noteworthy for inclusion? Would the Nickelback example be? Would the Chicks not be? What would be done in examples where the band themselves can't even agree on how they got their name, or intentionally give out misinformation? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * For example, an selection guideline that a band origin can only be included if the origin is the subject of multiple independent reliable sources would be (a) easy and straightforward to apply; (b) rely on the coverage provided by independent RS to say what the band name's origin was; and (c) exclude band name etymologies that reliable sources don't find noteworthy enough to give an article to. I think that something like this might reasonably work. I don't know the particular sourcing situations for the examples of the names of Nickelback and The Chicks, but their inclusion would entirely dependent on the extent to which a particular name origin is given coverage by multiple reliable sources as the subject of an article. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * And what purpose would this serve that is not already contained on the band's article? Also, what would be done in cases where the story is "we just picked a word at random", "our manager came up with it on the spot", or there are RSes that contradict each other? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * When reliable sources contradict each other, per WP:NPOV, we would fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, note all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. This is pretty straightforward to apply in the case of disputed origins.
 * The purpose of having a list is that information on band names could be located in one place, which provides access to this sort of information in ways that are similar to how multiple reliable sources group it. The value of a list is that it compiles notable information in an easy-to-digest way; List of states and territories of the United States provides little more information than would be available in all of its member articles, but having a list of all the states adds more value to the reader than making them actually visit the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and Puerto Rico article to discover that they are all territories of the United States. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Ⓜ️hawk10. There are books on the subject, so a list is justifiable. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - per the sources/arguments presented by Mhawk10. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 11:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

 References
 * Keep – Passes WP:LISTN as a topic that "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Some source examples are listed below. North America1000 16:41, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Rock Band Name Origins. McFarland. 256 pages.
 * The Band Name Book. Boston Mills Press. 336 pages.
 * Rock Names. Carol Publishing Group. 299 pages.
 * Rock Formations: Categorical Answers to how Band Names Were Formed. Cidermill Books. 285 pages.
 * The Big Book of Rock & Roll Names. Abrams. 304 pages.
 * Battle of the Band Names. Abrams. 252 pages.
 * The Dictionary of Rock & Pop Names: The Rock & Pop Names Encyclopedia from Aaliyah to ZZ Top. Pen & Sword Books. 320 pages.


 * Keep - per Mhawk10, and I go further: albeit I do agree that the content needs a cleanup and some of its resources checked, I also believe that the page has value. People come to Wikipedia to search for content, and this page fulfills such purpose. Sepguilherme (talk) 19:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. It needs a lot of work, but not terrible. Bearian (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Oppose deletion. LynRuch (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2022 (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.