Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bands named after foods


 * 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. Mailer Diablo 18:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

List of bands named after foods
I'm not sure about this, but this listcruft is getting out of hand... does the author even think this will be remotely maintainable? Dark Shikari 13:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes I think it will be maintainable. I knew someone would throw up an AfD as soon as I created it, hence I included the See Also section, which is a list of articles similar to this one, some of which also went through the AfD process and were considered to be valid at the end of it. Superbo 13:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If other similar lists survived AfD, this probably can. I'll see what other Wikipedians have to say in that case. Dark Shikari 13:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Articles_for_deletion/List_of_bands_named_after_places Superbo 14:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Strong Keep. I don't think it will be that hard to maintain, there's probably only like 100-200 notable bands named foods and after you get them all then it's just a matter of adding new ones as they come along. It is pretty crufty though. Recury 14:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You mispelt "week". I corrected your spelling, for you.--Oswellm 17:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, actually "weak" is the correct spelling. Recury 17:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, it may well be maintainable, but that doesn't mean it has any kind of encyclopaedic value. Proto ::  type  15:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * So all those other articles should be deleted too? Superbo 15:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete can't see any encylcopedic value in a list of bands that have nothing in common but happen to have a particular reference in their name. MLA 16:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * See above. Superbo 16:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment despite the implication I did indeed see above and I still chose to recommend delete as I still think that this list does not have any encyclopedic value despite the arguments of Superbo. I also believe that some of the other lists should be deleted.  Thanks to Dark Shikari for refuting Superbo in a civil manner. MLA 18:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Why not a list of bands named after places? If we begin to list bands this way, we shoud have an infinite amount of lists! --Neigel von Teighen 16:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A list like this one you mean? Nice of you to click around this page before commenting. Move to disregard above two votes, as their following comments have already been refuted in this discussion.  Superbo 16:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Their comments have not been "refuted" at all: they believe that those other lists should also be deleted.  D a r k S h i k a r i   17:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * But they're wrong, or at least don't agree with the consensus on the existing AfD discussions. Btw no offence but I don't like what your new sig does to the pages in edit.  Superbo 22:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Proto --TorriTorri 17:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is so what WP:NOT is all about. This list is trivial, indiscriminate, non-encyclopedic information. Even if there were a need for an article on bands named after foods, I doubt we'd need this list. Agent 86 00:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per who cares! Unencyclopedic. Who really cares what bands are named after foods. This just isn't needed. Let's add List of bands with colors in the title. These just are uneeded. Ridiculous. -Royalguard11Talk 01:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Stongest of Keeps per I care and the couple of other contributors it saw today probably care and so on. Superbo 01:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment These are all just "for your interest" articles. They contain no encyclopedic value whatsoever. -Royalguard11Talk 01:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I find this sort of thematic grouping interesting, but it's trivial, not encyclopaedic. Doesn't belong here. GassyGuy 07:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-encyclopedic. -- GWO
 * Strong Keep. The comparison to the geographic band names list is an excellent one and provides real AfD precedent for keeping this list. This list should stay because it is an interesting list useful to all who seek topical band name data. People who seek that information are a relatively large group. If this is deleted, the geographic list should be nominated. There is no daylight between these two lists. Erechtheus 19:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Finally. Thank you for seeing sense.  I notice that the other voters feel so strongly about the issue that none of the other band-name list articles have been nominated or re-nominated for AfD. Superbo 11:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment True, that one is just as unencyclopedic and needs to go. GassyGuy 12:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete (listcruft) --Karnesky 22:34, 31 July 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.