Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of eponymous band names


 * 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. While the deletion nomination may not have been the best, no one apart from the creator actually argues for keeping this list, while the other opinions basically agree that the topic is too broad, too indiscriminate, and lacks specific coverage as a general topic (coverage of individual examples probably exists). Fram (talk) 13:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

List of eponymous band names

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not a definitive criterion of naming. List is maybe 1% complete at best, and completing it would make it WP:IINFO. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't agree with the stated reasons for deletion. Lists don't get deleted for being incomplete, and they don't have to be completable to have encyclopaedic value.  That's why we have things like Lists of African Americans, for example.  And what's a "definitive criterion of naming", and which rule or guideline refers to that?  WP:IINFO certainly doesn't.  What WP:IINFO forbids are summary-only descriptions of fictional works, lyrics databases, and excessive listings of statistics. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't delete this list, it just means we need to look at different guidelines.  It seems to me that the guidelines we should really be interrogating are WP:N (are there any sources that treat this as a separate topic?) and WP:SALAT (can we explain how this list contributes to the sum of human knowledge?)— S Marshall  T/C 23:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 05:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 05:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Neutral As User:S Marshall, I disagree with the rationale of the nomination but cannot really think of any policy expressly for or against. We do already have List of band name etymologies, which is far more detailed and informative. However, this article is specific and does provide accurate information. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 06:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SALAT (which IMHO is a derivative from WP:IINFO, but this is beyond the point now), also as the subject wasn't mentioned in sources, delete per WP:N and per WP:SYN (though I admit that WP:SYN argument is close to borderline in this case). Ipsign (talk) 07:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think WP:SYN is unapplicable as one could demonstrate easily that the band names are indeed eponymous (indeed it says so on every article listed). I certainly won't be upset to see this list deleted but it appears to be sufficiently limited and yet not too specific to breach WP:SALAT. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 08:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, "indeed eponymous" is not enough to assert it is not WP:SYN. WP:SYN is about advancing the point which is not in original sources, and I can with a straight face argue that by creating such an article which categorizes bands by this criteria (which criteria wasn't used by anybody else), the article implicitly advances the point ("implies a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources") that this categorization is of any importance/notability. While I admit it is borderline synthesis, I think that examples given in WP:SYN show that definition of what is considered invalid synthesis, is very broad, so WP:SYN should apply here too. BTW, the other way to see the same thing (with exactly the same conclusion), is WP:N, so if everybody agrees to delete it on the basis of WP:N and not WP:SYN, I won't argue too much :-). Ipsign (talk) 13:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Full disclosure, I'm the article's creator.  Having an eponymous band name often influences band politics, the legacy of individual members, how the musical act is perceived, etc...  It has been a major issue in modern music.  Anyone can reference the huge political battles that broke out in Motown when Barry Gordy started renaming some of his musical acts.  Diana Ross and the Supremes vs the Supremes, for example, or the Temptations ultimately deciding against becoming David Ruffin and the Temptaions.  And these events are not isolated.  Also, while it is indicative of lists to be light treatments of a topic, this topic in and of itself is one of real-world implications beyond simple trivia.  I have considered the nominators objections, but poor article quality is not of itself a reason for deletion, and it is not my understanding that only finite lists may be included at Wikipedia.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 20:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as indiscriminate. Too many bands would potentially meet this definition with too much argument and subjectivity. Some are nothing more than solo artists with a rotating back-up band. Some are bands that loosely allude to some of the members in the name. To the creator, if there are sources that talk about the politics of bands over naming issues, it may make a worthy section in an article about bands in general. But only to the extent that it is sourced. This is an encyclopedia, not a VH1 special. Dzlife (talk) 13:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the lead paragraph specifies loose allusions are not acceptable criteria for addition to the list. In addition, all bands must have their own article. This limits the scope of the list somewhat. I agree entirely that band politics are not to be considered. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 22:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I believe that this would be much more maintainable as a category rather than a list. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur. Ipsign (talk) 08:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete. Despite its own inclusion criteria, this list is still too general or too broad for any real value, as per WP:SALAT. This list is high maintenance and could become extremely long. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 12:15, 20 September 2011 (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.