Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bands with complete sentence name


 * 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. Wickethewok 22:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

List of bands with complete sentence name
Pure listcruft. Wikipedia is not a collection of internal links, is not a directory. Only two pages link to this article, including another "list of" article. SkerHawx 01:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - I am not sure about the category, "complete sentence name"? And I agree that this list does not explain anything, it is just putting names. Cheers -- Imo  eng  01:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete although I find it incredibly amusing that many of the band names in this article are in fact not complete sentences. Danny Lilithborne 01:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as something close to indiscriminate information, albeit of a passing interest. Discussion on the article's Talk page implies an amout of OR as well, as at least one user is talking about the context in which certain words are used in the hypothetical sentences. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That was me on the talk page, where a word can have two meanings, and one of those meanings makes the name a sentence and one doesn't, I point it out on the talk page. No OR at all, just pointing out what I meant when I added them. -- Chuq 02:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It still feels a bit OR-ish to say that Band X meant word Y in their name to be taken in this way, but I see where you're coming from. It's still a pretty indiscriminate type of list. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Complete sentence names are not. Article useless. Should be deleted. Opabinia regalis 02:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - I come through and delete the non-complete-sentence band names every so often. I had a look at the page a couple of days ago, but didn't do the deleting then.  Maybe if I had, this article wouldn't have been nominated... -- Chuq 02:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - have cleaned up a lot of the crap (bands of questionable existence/notability, and bands who's names do NOT form a complete sentence). -- Chuq 02:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * delete Lists of (notable things) with a (notable trait) are notable lists. Lists of (notable things) with a (non-notable trait) are not notable.  This list is not more notable, than say, "List of Bands with 'The' in their name" or "List of Bands with Three Word Names"  Linguistic coincidences are not notable traits.  --Jayron32 04:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This kind of comment is why I hate the word notability. It's irrelevant whether the article itself is notable. Sheesh. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * replyplease elaborate. I do not understand this comment.  Notability, as defined in unequivocal terms in WP:NN, is the primary criteria for the existance of all articles on wikipedia.  --Jayron32 18:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Notability is a guideline, not policy. WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR are the primary criteria.  Notability is a shortcut to ensure articles can be written that meet those.  We're not out to write notable articles, or articles about notable things, we're out to write verifiable articles without original research that reflect a neutral, objective point of view.  Limiting ourselves to things that receive a reasonable level of attention is a means to that end.  "this list is not more notable..." is an absolutely absurd statment, because none of our lists are notable by our standards.  The characteristic may be notable or not, but we don't have notability guidelines for features of songs, because they're not the kinds of things we use that for.  Notability is not the end-all be-all too many people seem to think it is. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. If notability were never included, then all sorts of information would be allowed on wikipedia, and common sense says that some threshold must be established before something warrents an encyclopedia article. For example: You can verify my existance through public records (phone books, tax records, birth announcements, marriage announcements, property assessements, that sort of thing.  Heck, I have even been in the paper a few times.  Been on TV too!).  You can write an NPOV article about the information you find there.  Doing so is not original research.  And yet, I AM NOT WORTHY OF A WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE.  Why?  I have done nothing notable.  Lets not bicker about the difference between "guideline" and "policy".  Notability is IMPORTANT.  It establishes whether an encyclopedia article should be written on a subject.  This subject lacks notability.  It should be deleted. --Jayron32 18:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You're using a really hazy and subjective sort of notability. If you've had several newspaper articles and tv news stories about you, I'd say you've probably done something worthy of note.  Being on TV isn't quite same, though, if they just happen to interview you.  The problem with writing an article about you would be that we wouldn't have anything verifiable to write that would be anything other than a directory entry. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply Explain the haziness and subjectiveness in these terms: NONTRIVIAL: Extensive coverage, more than just a mention, the subject in question should be one of the primary focus of the sources. MULTIPLE: Many, several, numerous.  RELIABLE SOURCES:  Editiorial process,   WP:RS.  Nontrivial coverage in multiple, reliable sources.  The only criterion that is worthy of defending WRT to notability.  This subject does not bear out, as there is no critical review of bands just for their names.  But there cannot be nontrivial coverage of what is essentially a trivial fact.  Thus the list should be deleted.  WRT my notability, I have not had "several articles" about me.  My name has appeared in the newspaper as a graduate of highschool, college graduate, when I got married.  I also had a picture published in the paper when I was a child for "Hey, look how cute this kid is" kind of article.  I appeared on TV as a participant in a high school quiz show that airs on a single public television station.  I am not notable.  All of these instances are verifiable, but they are trivial in the sense that extensive review has NOT been done with regards to these sources.  Thus, I am not notable, thus I am not worthy of an article.  Lists of bands by genre of music WOULD be notable, since there is extensive coverage of bands within the context of their genre.  There is nothing more than trivial coverage of bands merely because of linguistic coincidences in their names.  Arguing against notability will get you no where.  There is near complete consensus that notability (or lack therof) is a criteria for deletion.  If you need to establish that for yourself, read through any days worth of AfDs.  See which articles get deleted.  See why people want them deleted.  Merely because you, as a single editor, do not want notability to "count" and find it "fuzzy" does not mean that the general consensus will change to your opinion.  The consensus opinion is that notability is both easily definable and understandable AND an important criteria to a subjects worthyness.  This subject is not worthy, since it fails the primary notability criteria:  It has no hope of ever warrenting NONTRIVIAL COVERAGE IN MULTIPLE RELIABLE SOURCES. Thus, it dies on the vine.  Delete it. --Jayron32 04:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete WK:NOT Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source for information. It excludes the exceptionally trivial, which is precisely what this is.  Pure listcruft of the most random kind, a completely arbitrary classification.  As the above poster stated, if we accept this then we have to accept lists of bands with albums with 'the' in the title, or any other crazy thing you can think of.  --The Way 05:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, do not categorize. Punkmorten 07:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete these bands, say yeah. --Dhartung | Talk 08:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. What on earth is the point of this? Words fail me. BTLizard 09:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - There are many such lists. -- N R S | T/M\B 12:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact that there are other examples of a particular article type doesn't mean that any one given article should be kept. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Pointless. NRS says there are many such lists and s/he is right.  There are also many dog turds, but it doesn't mean I'm keeping the one on the pavement outside my house.   Emeraude 17:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Please be nice Emeraude. Everybody on wikipedia is entitled to their opinion, and I would also point out that whomever maintains the page might not appreciate having their work equated with 'dog turds'.  As to the issue at hand, I added a link on the main list of musicians page to the list nominated for deletion.  It is entirely possible that someone, somewhere could say, 'Hm, I'd like to make a playlist featuring bands whose names are a gramatically correct sentence.'  If Wikipedia could meet this hypothetical person's needs, the efforts of this article's creator will not be wasted.  Just my two pennies... - b o b b y  19:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Apologies. I didn't mean to equate this particular article with dog turds. The point I wanted (and perhaps failed) to make is that just because there are a lot of anything, it doesn't mean that any one or any number of them are worth preserving - in this case lists in general.  Emeraude 19:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Completely worthless to anyone, Unless you are doing an essay on pop culture use of complete sentences(which I doubt).  Acsta 23:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Jayron32 and The Way. --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I like this list and I find it interesting. Even though it's not informative in any particularly significant or useful way, I do not see how anyone would benefit as a result of deleting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.40 (talk • contribs)


 * 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.