Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of emo artists (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. Non-admin closure.  Jamie ☆ S93  12:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

List of emo artists
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Wholly redundant to Category:Emo musical groups (both sort alphabetically), which is what List of emo bands and List of emo groups redirects to. Sceptre (talk) 11:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * STRONG KEEP At it again, eh? We've been through this. The List of emo bands is nothing but pure OR. The list that you want deleted complies with wikipedias current policy and guidlines and is by far a better list. You need to read WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:RS. The List of emo artists complies with each. It is sourced by reliable and varifiable sources and is NOT influenced by personal opinion. Redundent my foot. If any thing, the List of emo bands should be deleted, as it violates all policy.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 12:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:CLN; categories and lists "should not be considered to be in conflict with each other" D0762 (talk) 08:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Keep No valid reason for deletion stated according to Deletion policy, bad faith nomination by the same editor who nominated it just two months ago where it was explained quite clearly that categories and lists are not exclusive. There is no valid reason to nominate the same article again. According 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". The list should be used to improve the category, as suggested in guidelines, as the category contains poorly sourced articles. So i suggest this is closed and sanctions brought against the nominator if this and the disruption of the article continues. -- neon white talk 21:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Explain to me how the list differs in any way from the category apart from the columning. All I can see is an alphabetised list - which is what a category is. The references can be added to the band articles. At the very least, the list and category should be synchronised. I think the passage you link to also doesn't mean what you say - I don't think it supports redundancy (and for the record, the reason for nomination is different - the previous one was because of the stigma attached to the label making it a synthesis and POV-pushing hotspot). Sceptre (talk) 22:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That it completey irrelevant. As has been pointed out many times and you well know that lists and categories should not be considered to be in conflict with each other. Neither is favoured by the community, the consensus is that they both should coexist and compliment each other. That is the current consensus and this is not the place to argue in favour of one or the other and it is certainly innapropriate to use an afd to try and make a point. The guideline WP:CLN clearly spells out the pros and cons of each and states attempts to delete one in favour of the other is considered inappropriate. "the "category camp" should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the "list camp" shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system - doing so wastes valuable resources. Instead, each should be used to update the other." The articles is also a valid fork of the main Emo article. -- neon white talk 14:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We've gone through this, read the guidline. It supports our position.(13Tawaazun14 not signed in)96.234.176.56 (talk) 01:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Does it? As many people thought it would be better as a category... Sceptre (talk) 08:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess the problem with a category would be we'd lose the sources, and without that people would start adding whatever they wanted to the category without justification. But I agree with Sceptre that the sources could be added to the band articles. D0762 (talk) 09:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is what the guidelines suggests doing. You use each to improve the other. -- neon white talk 14:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  13:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Still seems like a reasonable list (per WP:CLN) with decent references. Klausness (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This list could probably be reformatted and rewritten into something useful, since it's just an a list of blue links without commentary, but it's a perfectly reasonable subject for a list. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:09, 11 June 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.