Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of melodic death metal bands (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. It is not clear from the discussion why participants felt inclusion was based on subjective criteria, given other participants' indication that "melodic" refers to a specific genre, for which we have an article. Overall, this could close either as keep or no consensus depending on how to interpret the vague non-policy-based comments that appear here. Either way, the result for the article is the same. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

List of melodic death metal bands
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Was deleted a while ago for being WP:OR and, in my opinion, too WP:FANCRUFTy. There was some edit warring over a speedy so I brought it here again. Again, this list is incredibly subjective; it has no sources, no material, content, or information other than a list, and as such, is completely redundant to a category. Scarian Call me Pat!  10:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * delete listcruft. There is already a category and the list provides no more useful information. Fair Deal (talk) 11:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * delete WP:OR, subjective term --  Chzz  ►  13:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We have an article on the genre, so I don't think there's anything subjective about it at least not in the regular sense of the word melodic. Still reference issues though. - Mgm|(talk) 13:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. Peter Fleet (talk) 13:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- the wub  "?!"  14:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- the wub  "?!"  14:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge. The information contains on the list seems to be a necessary complement to the melodic death metal article, unless it's claimed that melodic death metal is in fact an empty style designation without any practitioners now or ever,  like twelve-tone square-dance metal.  Arguments about "original research" or "fancruft" strike me as arguments about what ought to be listed here, and this really isn't the place to discuss them. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge and redirect . Per WP:CLN just the existence of a category is no reason to delete a list.  In my opinion arguements that the list is 'subjective' while still holing that we keep the category (as per nomination, Fair deal and presumbly Peter Fleet) is nonsensical in my opinion as the same should therefore apply to the category, and the main article as well, so these should be deleted as well.  The arguement that the lists adds nothing is, in my opinion, a better arguement as I'd agree that at the moment it does not .  That said there is information in the main Melodic death metal article (and presumbly else where) that could make the list more like List of thrash metal bands and so wrothy of keeping.  The arguement then would be whether the list should be kept as a seperate article or merged into Melodic death metal.  Given the length of that article I'd suggest that merging is the most sensible option at the moment but that still means that List of melodic death metal bands shouldn't be deleted as a redirect to the appropiate section in the merged article would be appropiate .  Finally, it is my believe, that in general at AfD discusions the issue is whether the article could meet all wikipedia policies not whether it currently does.  Therefore the lack of extra information in the list is no reason to delete as I'm sure that such information could be found and added.  Given the number of editors and the young age of the article I feel reasonably confident that this would occur if the editors were guided in what was required - something that as yet they've not had a chance to do. Dpmuk (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: Changing to just keep.  The new updated article is longer enough that I no longer think it should be merged.  Making a list a table with extra columns also means that my comment that the list adds little is no longer valid. Dpmuk (talk) 08:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The list is far more readable than the category format.  Also, in this case, it has far more things listed than the category does.   D r e a m Focus  17:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. "Melodic" being part of the accepted name of the genre, and not an opinion on the sound itself. Not redundant with the category, as it contains extra (albeit minimal at this point) content in the form of the nationality identifiers. With some additional work and content/commentary, it could easily be on par with or surpass List of thrash metal bands which was cited as an example of a "keep"-able List-of-x-bands. Arakunem Talk 18:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * - I would love to see someone fix it then, friend. But I see no takers? And prove to me, with the article as is (i.e. without any sourcing), how it's not just a subjective list? Scarian  Call me Pat!  22:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, not subjective, in the sense that the Melodic in the name is not someone's opinion on the pleasant-ness of the sound, but rather that Melodic death metal is the proper name of the genre, and the list is a list of bands self-identified as being in that genre. If it was a list of "Metal bands with a pleasing-to-the-ear sound", then yes, that's purely subjective. As for fixing it, and no-takers, well the article is only dated from January, and seems to have a fairly active history of being worked on. Hardly seems to have hit the wall of expandability. Arakunem Talk 22:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep, on balance, because I can't see a valid reason for deletion. I can't agree this is original research and good sources could be found.-- S Marshall   Talk / Cont  21:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This is precisely what categories are intended for. Additionally, whether a band is "melodic death metal" is very subjective.  Enigma msg  22:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as per all previous delete comments. Wether B (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: a never ending list. It's too vague in scope on what is "melodic death metal". WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. JamesBurns (talk) 23:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep a list should work with a category and red-links can't be contained in a category.  Lugnuts  (talk) 08:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Red-links are deleted swiftly from this list. It is the only maintenance that the list has. It contains hidden text telling editors Every "List of X genre band" contains similar hidden text. Wether B (talk) 11:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I have started working on the list, making a complete change to the format and adding citations to some of the entries. I will resume working on it later and anyone else can also help out. When completed, it should look something like this list. I defy anyone to tell me that example is not better than categories. I am also sick and tired of hearing from editors who obviously have not read wikipedia's guidelines on categories and lists. A list can always be improved: there is no such thing as a featured category but wikipedia has numerous featured lists. Wikipedia's deletion policy explicitly states that if the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. As long as the subject is notable and the information is verifiable, there is really no reason why this or any similar list should ever be deleted. --Bardin (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and rescue per WP:HEY. WP:LIST allows both lists and cats.  Further proof that scarian and I are not sockpuppets. Bearian (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: listcruft, this would be better suited as a category. A-Kartoffel (talk) 02:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Since the nomination was made, sources have been added for many of the bands on the list. And per WP:CLN, categories and lists serve different purposes. Keep and continue to improve the referencing. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 03:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I really don't understand the logic behind the argument "This is precisely what categories are intended for". I've looked at the category guideline, and nowhere does it say categories were intended to make lists obsolete or to justify their deletion. In fact we have a guideline that says precisely the opposite. Not to mention that this list contains plenty which cannot be included in the category, including country of origin, formation date, and references. Besides, if this were inherently original research (which it's not), we'd have to delete the category as well. DHowell (talk) 05:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Nicely constructed, well referenced list that complements the article.&mdash; G716  &lt;T·C&gt; 06:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Enigmaman. Subjective inclusion criteria are precisely what categories are intended for. Benefix (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? "Subjective inclusion criteria" are precisely what categories were not intended for; it is actually a reason for category deletion. However, the inclusion criteria here are not subjective, there are plenty of reliable sources classifying bands as "melodic death metal". DHowell (talk) 07:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as such lists can be useful if thoroughly maintained by its WikiProject (definition, sources, notable entries etc.).-- Avant-garde a clue - hexa Chord 2  16:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as having subjective inclusion criteria. Inclusion is therefore original research. Stifle (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep List article has been improved and a very good faith effort to add sourcing is also underway with dozens of cites already. These are notable bands and the list looks to be well presented and coherent. Personally I feel it would more more useful if there was more narrative history but that may be best kept in the parent article. -- Banj e  b oi   00:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep  I can't myself really judge what amounts to a distinct genre; I assume the existence of the article is sufficient to show that. But if it does, then a list is appropriate, since it can include more information than a category. I think that in general every category that is not impossibly general or too small to be worth the trouble should have a corresponding list.  DGG (talk) 20:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete We already have a List of death metal bands. There is no need for a list on every made up metal subgenre (even if we have articles on them, because there should be some cutting down on those as well).--Sloane (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: If it's a made-up subgenre please get Melodic death metal deleted. If it is a real subgenre then it deserves a list or at least the information should be merged. Nerfari (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete This strikes me as a rather useless list. I'm not very into death metal though, so I could just be biased. CapitalSasha ~ talk 01:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - useless. The Real Libs-speak politely 02:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete &mdash; Very subjective list with no objective inclusion criteria, as per User:Stifle. Also, a category already exists. The article is redundant.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 09:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete &mdash; Too much opinion involved. Eeekster (talk) 12:19, 9 March 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.