Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of garage rock 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant    talk    04:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

List of garage rock bands

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is a list of garage bands that is just that - a list of bands. There are no requirements for those on the list to meet the GNG, or even a set of list specific guidelines, as such it has become a list based on OR and is somewhat of a an indiscriminate collection of information. As it is right now I am reminded that Wikipedia is not a collection of links, even internal ones.

As there appears to be some confusion as to why this is here ("No real reason for deletion given, 'messy' doesn't count", "didn't read WP:BEFORE", doesn't know how to make AFD noms, etc): The blue links in my nom are hyperlinks that, if clicked, go to related policy and guidelines. This is a policy based nom. I had presumed that was obvious and those would be followed. In that case, and to be clear, I am going to explicitly cite the reasons it was sent here:


 * 1) What Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing.
 * 2) What Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files *including* collections of external links and collections of internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for lists to assist with article organization and navigation; for these, please follow the guidelines outlined at Stand-alone lists.
 * 3) Stand-alone lists: Lists should begin with a lead section  that summarizes any necessary background information, provides encyclopedic context, links to other relevant articles, and makes direct statements about the criteria by which members of the list were selected. This section, not the page's name, defines the subject of the list. Ideally, the selection criteria will be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources.
 * 4) Manual of Style (stand-alone lists): Stand-alone lists are Wikipedia articles; thus, they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view.
 * 5) No original research: Wikipedia does not publish original research.
 * 6) Talk:List of garage rock bands: January 29, 2008 - ive got a feeling this is just going to turn into a massive list a wikipedians bands
 * 7) Talk:List of garage rock bands: January 29, 2008 - As much as I hate these kinds of list pages, I don't think they're going to disappear anytime soon. I think we just need to be vigilant about the redlinks and maybe trim down the "revival" list.

Today is March 26, 2011. I do not see where the list has become anything more than what it was suggested it would become, and more. I hope that will make it more clear. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1 and 2 do not apply here. 3 is easily fixed. 4 is correct, and is already covered by the 'unreferenced' tag at the top of the article. I agree that entries should be sourced where they may be contentious, and am in the process of putting that into practice with a similar list for another genre. 5 will be covered when 4 is dealt with, although it's worth pointing out that original research doesn't mean anything that isn't sourced. 6 and 7 are editors' opinions, not policies or guidelines. There is no policy or guideline that indicates that a list such as this should not exist.--Michig (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you might want to take that up on the related policy page and explain why you feel Wikipedia *is* a "vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing" and should be a "repository of links" where editors can simply add links to their favorite bands. Maybe when you do that you can also try to have the wording "for these, please follow the guidelines outlined at Stand-alone lists" removed as it does "not apply here", ("here" being any deletion discussions about a list where editors add links, including "propaganda, advertising and showcasing" and "external" ones, for their their favorite bands). And of course "6 and 7 are editors' opinions" - or are you saying editors opinion are also not valid? Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You described the above as "hyperlinks that, if clicked, go to related policy and guidelines" - I simply pointed out that the last two were not in this category, and carry nos such weight - what is your problem with that? The rest of your rant is a lazy and obvious misrepresentation of my comments. --Michig (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Its a pretty clear fallacy to suggest that since User:Michig disagrees with your interpretation of policy of what Wikipedia is not they are in any way suggesting that Wikipedia IS all of those things Bob House 884 (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a pretty clear fallacy to suggest that since User:Michig clearly states that What Wikipedia is not does not apply to a deletion discussion of content that is explicitly in that policy as a "not" than, indeed, they are seen as suggesting that they feel Wikipedia *should* all of those things. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * When they said '1 and 2 do not apply here' I have a feeling this was meant to mean that your first and second objections were not relevant or not properly founded, nobody is suggesting that deletion policy in general doesnt apply. Incidently I think you may have missed my point about the black or white dilemna. I'm going to cool off this point now anyway since its clearly not going anywhere, I'd suggest you do the same. Bob House 884 (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's a list, and there's nothing wrong with lists. All such lists require the bands listed to be notable. It may need cleaning up and some criteria spelling out at the top, but there's no reason whatsoever to delete it.--Michig (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply: Never said there was anything wrong with lists. So as long as you are stepping forward to redo *this* list article and bring it up to policy and guideline specs I have no issues with withdrawing the nom. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * AFD is not for cleanup. As WP:BEFORE states: "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." Since you appear to be happy for the list to stay if fixed through normal editing, this AFD is only going to have one outcome. --Michig (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply: Sorry I mistook your "keep" as saying you were willing to take responsibility for improving the articles you gaily vote to keep. As you point out this is not a venue for discussion of article clean up, than I stand behind what my nom says. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, no valid reasons for deletion set forth. Obviously Wikipedia has lots of lists on all subjects, including bands, and these are well-supported by consensus, so saying this is just "a list of bands" doesn't accomplish anything other than a banal description.  General practice with lists of this kind is to exclude non-notable entries, even though this is not typically stated in the article title (though see List of notable Puerto Ricans), and this is not considered difficult to maintain: "Does this entry merit an article: yes or no?"  So the complaint that "there are no requirements for those on the list to meet the GNG" is simply incorrect, and to the extent the list does contain non-notable entries, those can simply be removed.  As for the lack of references, as garage rock is a recognized genre, and there are presumably reliable sources calling this or that band an example of that genre, that's completely fixable, and even where sources may disagree on genre, the list can be annotated to note that.  The nom should read WP:BEFORE before starting another AFD.  postdlf (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep No real reason for deletion given, 'messy' doesn't count. Also whilst a statement of intent to help fix an article might add weight to a 'Keep' vote, users are completely free to vote keep without having to adopt the article. Bob House 884 (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete 100% unsourced and apparently gonna stay that way. Pretty much this is vintage "who cares if it's true" Wikipedia, with the content derived entirely from people saying, "The Kinks was a garage rock band, The Kingsmen was too, I think Strawberry Alarm Clock was, don't forget Paul Revere and the Raiders, yadda yadda yadda".  The very first rule of an encyclopedia is WP:V, it has to be verifiable.  We've come a long way from the "take my word for it" days.  I get the feeling from the comments above that there's no incentive for improving it, simply because garage rock is such a great topic.  Thing is though, we've got a page for that topic, and it's called Garage rock, and it lists bands as part of its narrative.  What sets that article apart from this piece of nonsense is that it has stuff like, you know, proof.  Mandsford 19:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is verifiable. There are more several books dedicated to garage rock which can be used to verify entries in this list, in addition to web resources. Any entries that cannot be verified can be removed - it doesn't require the entire list to be deleted.--Michig (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm confused by your contradictory claims, within the same comment, that the list is both unverifiable and verifiable. You acknowledge that there is "proof" in the garage rock article, but only in the part of your comment where you try to use the existence of that prose article to justify deleting this one.  Obviously the format of prose vs. list does not change whether it's verifiable, and any sources in that parent prose article can be incorporated into this list, as I have begun doing.  postdlf (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  --  JN  466  23:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Conditional keep - Keep the article but include a provision that only bands with independent WP entries can be added. That way we can at least make sure that not every high school kid with a guitar is adding his name to this list. Essentially, remove all red links. --Ashershow1talk • contribs 23:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I just removed all of the redlinked bands on the presumption that they are nonnotable. Though red links in a list are not in and of themselves bad as long as the linked topic merits an article, even though one hasn't been started yet.  Red links can thus aid in article creation by identifying missing article topics.  But, on the other hand, a list of this kind, of a subject of this kind, is prone to nonnotable additions.  So there it is.  postdlf (talk) 21:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW, although I've heard of most of the bands that have articles, I haven't heard of any of those that you removed, so it seems perfectly reasonable that they should go, in the absence of any evidence that they belong here.--Michig (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Michig. Jclemens (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep because of Michig, and Postdlf making improvements, so my original rant doesn't apply anymore. Mandsford 21:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Fubsy-wubsy inclusion criteria, but the utility of this page as a source of in-links seems self-evident. Carrite (talk) 04:58, 10 March 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.