Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of folk punk bands


 * 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   redirect to folk punk. In the absence of a significant number of bands being demonstrably a part of this particularly specific genre, this list seems doomed to be either chronically underpopulated or woefully undersourced. Consensus in the past has generally supported the existence of this type of "list of (genre) bands" article, but in this particular case no strong argument for a separate article has been offered: sourceable bands can be readily included in folk punk until such a time as enough are available to warrant a separate list. ~ mazca  talk 02:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

List of folk punk bands

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

Not a list, and certainly not a list of bands. It contains one entry, of a solo musician. Granted, it could be populated (and once was), but this information is better captured by a category, which already exists. Chubbles (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. As with most lists, particularly genre lists of musicians, sources would be required to demonstrate that artists belong in the list. The list was previously populated, but after reviewing every entry Billy Bragg was the only one I found whose article had a single reference describing him as folk punk. In fact, about ½ of the listed artists did not have the words "folk punk" anywhere in their individual articles. Hardly suprising, as the folk punk article itself is not well-referenced and the label seems to be applied primarily according to editors' POV. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A list is not redundant to a category; as they organize the information in different ways, "there's already a category" is never a valid rationale for deleting a list. There are some classes of information best presented as a list without a matching category, and some classes of information best presented by a list/category combo, but there is no such thing as any class of information best presented as a category without a matching list. The fact that a category exists never justifies deleting a list — particularly given the fact that a list is the only form of presentation that can be properly referenced in the manner desired here, whereas it's not possible to reference a category at all. So if referencing is the problem, then why would we want to delete the only form of this information to which it's even possible to add any type of referencing?
 * Note also that a band's musical genre can almost always be verified by simply listening to the band's music, and accordingly I'm mystified as to what sources Chubbles and IllaZilla would consider acceptable; as an example, I know of at least one band that IllaZilla removed from the list on the basis that their article didn't explicitly contain the exact phrase "folk punk" with supporting independent source, despite the fact that the article does explicitly contain the exact phrase "that blends punk rock with folk rock" with supporting independent source. I'd welcome a coherent explanation as to exactly what distinction IllaZilla presumes can possibly be deemed to separate the genre of "folk punk" from the genre of "blends punk rock with folk rock", because it's certainly not one based on what the words mean. Ergo, keep. Bearcat (talk) 02:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that lists should be kept when they are useful. This may not be keyed to a specific policy, but it is eminently reasonable; useless things are useless and there is no sense keeping them around if they waste people's time. If a list exists that is not useful, especially one that requires significant maintenance, then it should not be kept. This list is not currently useful, as it is not actually a list at all. That doesn't mean that it is always not useful. However, the category function completely satisfies what this list does. It's entirely the same presentation of information - redundant. We do not need to have the exact same thing twice on the site. If the list provided any other information that the category could not, I would defend its existence, but it does not.
 * As for verifying genre by listening...Well, good luck. An enormous amount of time is spent dickering on Wikipedia over the subjectivity of genres; I don't believe that will be solved by listening, or by sourcing. In any case, it's immaterial to AfD as far as I am concerned. Chubbles (talk) 03:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Note also that a band's musical genre can almost always be verified by simply listening to the band's music, and accordingly I'm mystified as to what sources Chubbles and IllaZilla would consider acceptable
 * Um, no, that's original research, and this list is a perfect case in point. I myself am a big fan of punk rock and related genres, with a huge record collection to that effect (it's even the topic of my masters thesis). Sure, there are a handful of artists previously on this list whose music I could (and do) listen to and I think to myself "OK, this is folk punk because it's punk rock with folk influences". However, there were a number of acts on the list who I think it entirely ludicrous to call folk punk, because their music is either in no way punk or in no way folk (or in some cases, none of either): Beck, DeVotchKa, Dead Milkmen, Panic! at the Disco, The Lawrence Arms, Tiger Army, Violent Femmes, and The Weakerthans are all good examples. I've listened to all of these artists' music, and in my opinion none of them are "folk punk". So why were they on the list? Because in the opinion of the IP editor who populated the list (and who I assume also listened to their music), they were "folk punk". Clearly we can't "almost always verify the genre simply by listening to the band's music", because genres are inherently subjective to determine. What I think is the most appropriate genre, someone else is bound to disagree with, and vice versa. The only way to satisfactorily label a band a particular genre, from the standpoint of an encyclopedia, is to reference that label to reliable sources.
 * As to your question of what sources I would consider acceptable to qualify an artist for inclusion, my answer is simple: almost any secondary source describing the artist as "folk punk" or explaining how their music fits that genre. This could include reviewers, critics, music analysts or historians, etc. And no, I'm not talking about a source that simply says they "blend punk rock with folk rock". I'm talking about a source that actually uses the term "folk punk", because that's the only way to verify that a genre by this name actually exists and that independent sources are applying it to a specific act. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * merge with folk punk and continue to insist on reliable sources. If it gets longer it can be broken out again. Polarpanda (talk) 09:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to merge. There was 1 artist on the list who is referred to as "folk punk" in a reliable source, and that source isn't even in the article, it's in the artist's article. I hardly think merging an unref'd 1-item list of any value. Artists who are described as "folk punk" by reliable sources can certainly be mentioned in the folk punk article, and if a lot of these turn up then in the future someone can start a new list article per WP:SS. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I found a reliable source for the Pogues and Flogging Molly, but it's in Hungarian. Polarpanda (talk) 15:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have to go to Hungarian to find someone writing about them that way, I doubt it's a case worth making. But anyway, I don't think referencing solves the essential problem. Chubbles (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Lists like these are clearly valid for wp, so I'm not sure why this has been prodded. I agree with Illazilla that when dealing with sub-genres that fuse two or more styles of music, we need references that specifically describe the bands style as "folk punk" to indicate that this is a genuine genre rather than a scene term. This list is identical in structure, and from the proddings it has received here, here and here there seems to be just about sufficient concensus to keep, so this list should be trteated similarly. I assume good faith in Illazilla's editing of this list, but by deleting bands individually and then not stating which band has been removed in the edit summary makes it very hard to revert bands that actually apply to the list. I would suggest all edits by Illazilla are reverted and specific references added where possible with greater clarity provided when one is actually removed. Fenix down (talk) 11:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggesting that all of my edits be reverted simply because I didn't name each band I was removing in my edit summary is totally inappropriate. The reason I went through the list item-by-item was so that anyone could look at the page history, trace my steps one by one, and re-add any artist that they were prepared to add sources for. I left detailed edit summaries each time as to why I was removing each entry; to suggest totally reverting my work is ridiculous, after I took the trouble to not only go through the entire list but also check every individual artist's article to see if there were sources describing them as "folk punk". There weren't, so my edits amounted to removing unverified original research. That's not something that should be reverted. Anyone who wants to see which artists were removed is welcome to look back through the page history. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  — J04n(talk page) 13:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, just a (would-be) collection of links. Geschichte (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete / Hoax Seems somebody just "trolling" the Wikipedia and "list of" articles with one band. Funny. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 23:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The list actually was much longer but edits were made by illazillla to remove a load as they were unreferenced. Fenix down (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course it was. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If the category is so great at capturing this information, why can't we just use that to repopulate this list? Polarpanda (talk) 22:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If the category is great at capturing this information, why do we need the list at all? What purpose does it serve? Chubbles (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2009 (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.