Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of forerunners of punk rock


 * 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. The policy-based consensus, WP:V being core policy, is to delete. While the numbers in this debate are about 7-7, which would normally suggest a no consensus, it is impossible to ignore nine years of unreferencing, one year of tagging calling for references, and two weeks of the sword hanging over the article's head but no efforts being made to reference the article or even suggesting particular sources. In that context, keep rationales such as "just source it" and "needs a cleanup, perhaps a trim and some sources" are demonstrably weak. I note the outcome of this AfD doesn't in any way prohibit an article being created under this title that meets WP:V. Mkativerata (talk) 22:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

List of forerunners of punk rock

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unreferenced list...has been unreferenced since 2002 and has been tagged as needing references since August 2010. Who considers these to be the front runners? What is the criteria to be a front runner? None of that is set in this article. either way (talk) 03:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete and simply add each band or artist to Category:Protopunk musicians. Some of these bands and artists are described in the main articles as protopunk, others are not. Title is inappropriate. better as a category/categories.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Not a terrible idea, but the "Protopunk musicians" category doesn't include bands. This would require a renaming — plus it's no more or less a form of "original research" (so-called, ugh, what a stupid concept) to declare these bands "protopunk" by including them in a category than it would be to list them in a list. Same info, different forms... Carrite (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 05:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete this list appears to be a good case of original research or simply, the opinion of some editors who added these bands to this page. Unless some criteria can be set and evidence can support a decent number of these bands' fitting those criteria, this page is better off deleted.  I agree with Mercurywoodrose's arguments above for adding some bands to the suggested category. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - First off, pure opinion. Speaking as a punk fan since 1980 — yeah, it's a good list. It's well done. That counts for nothing here, but it's not a piece of crap. The main question, I suppose, is whether this list was pulled from thin air or whether it is a list from somewhere. It's funny, if you think about it, we build "original research" (quote, unquote, I hate that term...) lists every day of the year on Wikipedia. How? We list this or that subject as being part of various categories. You click on the category link anf voilá! — an "original research" list... The article on Lou Reed probably says "Category:People from New York City." But somehow it is "original research" to make a List of people from New York City that includes Lou Reed, sourced to the Wikipedia categories list? That makes no sense at all. So, okay, this is probably nothing but "Category:Protopunk bands" or some such in article-list form. That's okay. Criteria for inclusion, while not ultra-specific, remains vaguely comprehensible. The list is finite, logical, and performs a valid navigational function. Would this be a better list if it came from a Robert Christgau book or something? Maybe. Maybe not. The list is, like I say, not too far off the mark. Honest people may differ. So, yeah, as a list, based only on a WP category, this is a keep. Carrite (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC) Last edit:Carrite (talk) 17:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep If the list is merged with Protopunk, it will just bloat that article. it makes a fine separate addendum. Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unsourced list; any (referenced) content should be covered within other articles. I don't think "vaguely comprehensible" is the best criteria for determining the acceptability of lists. Neutralitytalk 16:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Carrite and WP:SAL. Categories and lists of the same topic are not mutually exclusive, and in this case, I think a list could provide better navigation than a category. I do however think that it could use a rename as 'forerunners' in the title is a bit odd. -Atmoz (talk) 14:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 18:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)




 * keep the question here is not "is the current list a good list" but "could a good list here be written?" Even if the current list is unsourced, surely enough sources exist on the forerunners of a highly notable movement that say individually that this person or that person influenced Punk Rock.  So it's not a matter of "sources do not or cannot exist" as much as "they're not in the article right now."  In other words, this is a discriminate list with defined and concrete entry requirements (an author or commentator has said you are a forerunner of the Punk Rock movement) and is finite and notable.  All the criteria of a good list. HominidMachinae (talk) 20:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * keep just source it. or put a thing on talk saying you're gonna start removing unsourced entries after x date. it's forerunners, not frontrunners btw. 86.44.18.93 (talk) 02:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not good enough rationale IMO. Just needs a cleanup, perhaps a trim and some sources.. deletion unnecessary. -- &oelig; &trade; 18:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, rename, and verify. Seems like a discriminate topic related to protopunk but needs a lot of work to keep it on point. Dzlife (talk) 14:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as contested material that is completely unsourced (WP:V). Whoever wants to keep it must provide adequate sources first (WP:BURDEN).  Sandstein   06:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Repeat keep I don't have a problem with it being turned in a category, but a list works equally well. As for verifiability, if the listees' aricles don't have enough in them to merit inclusion then that's where the adjustments probably should be made. In general I think lists like this exist by consensus. Wwwhatsup (talk) 07:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per the policies Verifiability and No original research. Because the list has remained unsourced since 2002, it should be deleted. The burden is on those wishing to retain the list to provide sources to verify the entries in the list. It is a given that this article "needs a cleanup, perhaps a trim and some sources" (OlEnglish) and that the article "needs a lot of work to keep it on point" (Dzlife). However, after eight years, no sources have been added to the list. It is unknown who considered these people to be "forerunners of punk rock". Per, this unsourced contested material must be deleted per WP:BURDEN. Cunard (talk) 10:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: Sorry, but WP:V - the fundamental content policy of this encyclopedia - is unequivocally, unignorably clear: challenged material must be supported by citations, preferably inline ones. This material has been challenged, and it has been unsourced for many years.  Come to that, the Protopunk article itself has language like "The term "protopunk" is of uncertain origins, and has proven difficult to define, and many widely different groups have been so dubbed."  The Keep proponents cannot now claim that the article is potentially, conceivably supportable by reliable, independent sources.  WP:V requires that it must be. To quote, "If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."  Period.  End of story.   ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  21:44, 27 August 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.