Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of emo artists


 * 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 No Consensus, defaults to Keep  Nakon  16:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

List of emo artists

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Very poorly defined and contentious list Sceptre (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   --  Beloved  Freak  15:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.   --  Beloved  Freak  15:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Delete Delete! Most of the bands on this list are not even emo bands.  Emo is not an easily defined genre, and since the late 90's, it has been terribly confused and stigmatized to the point that many bands--even emo-sounding bands--would loathe being tagged with such a label.  Many of the bands on this list fit better into another genre (such as "pop-punk," or "hardcore") and many of them, while containing emo elements, are too diverse to simply be tagged as an "emo band."  Emo is not easily defined enough to have a list of bands.  If this category must be kept, then it needs serious revision, but imo, this label is too controversial and subjective for anyone to ever come to a consensus about what bands do/don't belong.I feel like a tourist (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a list of notable music artists who have been referred to as, or had their music described as 'emo'. While I agree it's not easy to determine what is emo and what is not, this list is required because at least some artists are clearly emo. The list is well referenced at the moment with sources citing most of the artists. It is required list for Category:Lists_of_musicians_by_genre and useful as a list see WP:CLN. If individual bands are in the wrong musical genre, I suggest raising the issue on the talk page and amending according rather then deleting this useful list. SunCreator (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * STRONG KEEP I'm not sure how many times this needs to be stated but...IT'S NOT A LIST OF EMO BANDS!!! Sorry for screaming that but that is the 50umpth time that that has been stated. This NEVER WAS a list of emo artists, it IS a list of artists that have been CALLED emo by both varifiable and reliable sources. There are no absolutes here. Some of you guy's want this list deleted because you don't like that some of your favorite bands have been called emo by such sources or that some of the bands don't meet YOUR definition of emo. All of you should read WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, writing in bolded caps. That's just bound to make your arguments respected. +Hexagon1 (t) 05:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename An emo is typically a personality of a person, not a type of band, even if the whole band are counted as emos, the list should be called 'list of rock bands' as most if not all of those bands are rock bands. Kcollis (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * reply emo is in fact a genre, not a personality type.I feel like a tourist (talk) 19:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Emo is a genre of rock music. -- neon white user page talk 23:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment It seems rather excessive and arbitrary to create a list of bands who have been called emo. I recommend that you rename this list List of Bands Who Have Been Called Emo and don't forget to include American Football, Texas is the Reason, and Elliott Smith.  Anyway, the reason that I still suggest that we delete this subjective and restrictive list is that it is completely unnecessary, as a category already exists called "Emo musical groups" containing nothing short of an extensive list of emo artists, indeed, the search "list of emo bands" redirects to the list of emo bands that can be found there.I feel like a tourist (talk) 19:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Reply The problem with your thinking is that this is wikipedia, there are no absolutes. You might want to read some of the wikipedia policies like WP:V, WP:RS and especialy WP:OR. What you're suggesting violates WP:OR, as does the list Emo musical groups which is probably the biggest list of OR I've ever seen. The people there are always trying to add bands that fit there opinion of the emo genre even though it violates wikipedia policy. That's the reason we should keep this list. It's based off sources, not personal opinions of the editors as the other lists are.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Article is a fork of the obviously notable Emo article, has clearly defined criteria (see other similar lists List of pop punk bands, List of J-pop artists) and is based entirely on verfiable sources including MTV, AOL music, Rolling Stone, BBC, NY Times to name a few. It is not OR under any definition. Contention is a content issue which effects many articles on wikipedia and is not a valid reason for deletion. Categories and lists are not exclusive as defined in guidelines (Categories, lists, and navigational templates). I suggest the nominee withdraws the afd as a mistaken nomination as there is no valid criteria for deletion given in the nomination and most experienced editors can see the article is obviously notable. -- neon white user page talk 23:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, WP:SOFIXIT. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete Finding and varifying independent sources as to which bands are emo and which are not is a hopeless task. By keeping this page all you are asking for is edit wars and a list that is never accurate. This will never be a stable wikipedia article which is a sign of a bad page.Insearchofintelligentlife (talk) 03:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * editor blocked indef as a sockpuppet by Casliber per  DGG (talk) 06:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As the afd guidelines suggest, reading an article before commenting is recommended. It is clearly sourced. -- neon white user page talk 20:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Obvious keep per 13Tawaazun14. Edit wars are a constant presence on many controversial subjects such as abortion and the Israel-Palestinian conflict. That's not much of a reason to delete an article, particularly since any controversy surrounding a music genre pales significantly in comparison to the more serious subjects like war and politics. Categories and lists are not the same thing and one is not a substitute for the other. There is no reason why both cannot exist for any given topic and other genres do have both a similar list and a category. This list actually has references and as long as it continues to rely on references, it is hard to imagine why there should be any contention if editors abide by the wikipedia policies and guidelines concerning verifiability, original research and reliable sources. --Bardin (talk) 06:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per item 7 of WP:LC. Stifle (talk) 14:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you aware that you're citing an essay that editors are not obliged to follow? It is neither policy nor guideline. --Bardin (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, that isn't a valid excuse to delete the article at all. So far this list doesn't and hasn't violated any of wikipedias guidlines and policies. So far the only reason people want this list deleted is because they don't like whats on it, which isn't a valid reason at all. So far, no one has sited a policy or a guidline that it breaks, probably because there are none.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I'm suggesting that it be deleted and referring you to that for the reason. See WP:ONLYESSAY for a further refutation. Stifle (talk) 22:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ironically, of course, that too is just an essay. --Bardin (talk) 03:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I should also point out that the WP:LC that Stifle refers to is an essay that was created by - surprise, surprise - Stifle. --Bardin (talk) 04:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The essay has no consenus whatsoever and is disruptive in nature so i think it is best disregarded from this and any future afds. -- neon white user page talk 04:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * One that also suggests that simply pointing at a policy or guideline (or in this case an essay as Stifle does above) is also to be avoided. Unfortunately the reasons you are pointing to are merely an opinion of one or more editors and as i have said it quite clearly goes against the consensus that is the established WP:CLN guideline. It is consensus that lists and categories are synergistic, this is not the place to challenge. The makes the essay of no use to an afd. Guidelines also say Developers of these redundant systems should not compete against each other in a destructive manner, such as by nominating the work of their competitors to be deleted because they overlap. - neon white user page talk 04:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Right then. Delete as the list has no content beyond links to other articles, so would be better implemented as a (self-maintaining) category. Happy? Stifle (talk) 11:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Which unfortunately is not a valid reason for deletion. Navigational lists are completely accepted and appear throughout wikipedia. This may also be considered disruptive behaviour accoridng to guidelines. Developers of these redundant systems should not compete against each other in a destructive manner, such as by nominating the work of their competitors to be deleted because they overlap -- neon white user page talk 22:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, you've said that already. I disagree with the essay/guideline you are quoting, whatever it is. Stifle (talk) 10:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per item 7 of WP:LC and apparent difficulty in maintaining a stable page.Divinediscourse (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment OK, again, WP:LC is neither policy nor guidline. It's advice from other editors, nothing more. We are in no way obligated to follow it, so that's not an excuse to delete a page that follows wikipedia guidlines and policies. You guys have presented no valid reason to delete this page. And how is it an unstable page? (13Tawaazun14 not signed in.)72.81.226.247 (talk) 20:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * To add to that the essay contradicts guidelines on lists (LIST) on alot of points and established practice. The only valid reasons for deletion are the ones at WP:DEL. None have been given. -- neon white user page talk 20:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following" - emphasis mine. Sceptre (talk) 22:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, aside from it's "contentious," i.e. you don't like what's on it, do you have any real reason pertaining to wikipedia guidlines and policy as to why this list should be deleted?! So far, I've seen "I don't like the content," "I don't like the content," "I don't think it's managable," and 2 for "It violates this essay which has no real bearing on wikipedia and is nothing more than advice on lists, made by other editors." "I dont like the content," is not a real reason, as has been explaind a couple thousand times already. "I don't think it's managable," pure BS, people have been managaing very well for some time now. "It violates this essay which has no real bearing on wikipedia and is nothing more than advice on lists, made by other editors," need I say more?!!! Give a real reason pertaining to wikipedia guidlines and policy already, otherwise you just mistakenly nominated a good list for deletion, and should remove the tag ASAP! (13Tawaazun14 not signed in)72.81.226.247 (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are in fact other valid reasons for deletion not covered in WP:DEL. Examples include empty categories that have been empty for four days, templates that are blatant misrepresentations of established policy, and transwikied articles. These other valid reasons can be found on other pages documenting wikipedia's policies and guidelines. A policy is a "widely accepted standard that all users should follow" and a guideline is a "generally accepted standard that all users should follow." An essay, in contrast, merely "contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors" and "editors are not obliged to follow it." There is no indication or evidence that the qualifying phrase "are not limited to" means that essays can be cited as valid reasons for deletion. Wikipedia's deletion policy explains valid grounds for deletion. Essays do not. --Bardin (talk) 04:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You are correct sir. All the reasons givin are invalid grounds for deletion. We have 2 personal opinions of what emo is, 2 for it's a navigational list, and 1 it's impossible to source, nevermind the fact that the last one's not true and it's well sourced already. Let's see... 2 + 2 = 4 + 1 = 5 invalid reasons for deletion. Ugh, someone show me a policy and/or guidline that it violates already. So far I only see personal opinion.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 00:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * DeleteIt keeps getting changed everyday. There would only be wars over it. Riverpeopleinvasion (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not a valid reason for deletion. All articles are subject to being changed at anytime by anyone, this is a fundamental principle of wikipedia, are you suggesting the deletion of the entire encyclopedia? -- neon white user page talk 17:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Again, can someone come up with a real reason for deletion and not all this BS? Oh yeah, and now it's 6 invalid reasons :-D.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Perfectly reasonable list (see WP:CLN), with well-defined criteria and lots of references to justify inclusion. May want to rename it to something like List of artists classified as emo to try to cut down on the contentiousness.  Klausness (talk) 10:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's unecessary and not inline with other similar articles. The definition of a list covers that it is info that has been classified according to criteria. -- neon white user page talk 02:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not unecessary and it doesn't have to be inline with other similar articles. Any thing that helps the average reader better understand the list is a plus. A name change to something along those lines makes it easier for the every day reader to understand the list. As not everyone who reads wikipedia is an editor, they probably arn't familiar with wikipedias policies and guidlines and won't know that there arn't any absolutes. As a result, a name change would better able the general reader to understand the article. As wikipedia caders to the genreal reader, that's a completly viable opption for a change to this list.71.179.8.102 (talk) 12:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As has been said wikipedia doesnt alter articles because of vandalism. If you do, you're excusing the vandalism. -- neon white user page talk 04:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Maybe some people may not add their own opinion to the article. Riverpeopleinvasion (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not policy to change an article due to vandalism. -- neon white user page talk 02:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That's correct. Articles are changed for the perpose of making it more ligible not to protect against vandals. Vandalism problems are solved by blocking the vandal and/or protecting the page. See WP:NOTCENSORED for more.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. My point was that a name change would make it clearer to the average user what the criteria for inclusion are, and hence would make it less likely that the average user would make unhelpful changes based on an incorrect assumption about the article.  Since many artist who are commonly considered to be emo (and thus would be appropriate for this list) reject the label, I thought it might be good to make it clearer what the inclusion criteria are.  Klausness (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That doesn't make sense, criteria has never been included in the title of an article. The criteria is clear at the top of the list. -- neon white user page talk 04:36, 24 April 2008 (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.