Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of nu 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: nom changed his mind, all other opinions are keeps with one neutral, so there is no one left arguing for a deletion. Fram (talk) 08:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Simply an un-manageable list. IPs constantly edit warring over each other's opinion as to which band is and which band isn't "Nu metal". Also constant addition of non-notable bands. This isn't a fan-list or "my local band's promotional tool" but unfortunately it's treated as such. It's been tagged as needing sources for over a year now and still none are present. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here @ 08:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as nom. Sometimes, all it takes is a little push... Delete as nom. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here @ 08:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Being the victim of edit wars isn't a valid reason for deletion. I'd recommend that you get the article semi-protected to avoid this.  Lugnuts  (talk) 11:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral Delete  as an indiscriminate collection of information. The fact that there is edit warring going on regarding the definition of "nu metal" solidifies this concern. This is also devoid of sourcing and all of these entities would have to be verified without a doubt as being nu metal bands.  Them From  Space  11:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Switched to neutral after sourcing/cleanup job.  Them From  Space  23:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep in agreement with User:Lugnuts, certainly is not indiscriminate and is a valid navigational list in line with guidelines and all the other similar lists. It just needs sources. Suggest the nom. reviews Deletion policy. --neon white talk 11:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep- "its been the subject of edit wars" is not and has never been valid reason for deletion, neither is being unsourced (being unsourceable is, unsourced is not, and yes there's a difference). The ony thing those arguments support are more careful monitoring and maintenance. Aside from that, the list is maintainable, assuming people are willing to spend the effort.Umbralcorax (talk) 13:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - edit warring by IPs is not a valid deletion argument, and has a simple solution (semi-protection). Addition of Non-notable content is also not a valid deletion argument- just remove the non-notable additions, and sanction the editors who add them if they are doing so in a disruptive manner. NoCal100 (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - the many editors that watch the list keep it one of the best maintained on WP, despite no protection. Limiting it to bands with WP articles solves the sourcing issue completely; would that every WP list followed the same approach.  UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep IPs edit-warring is no reason for deletion. Keeping the list to notable bands makes sense and is consistent with the various other "List of X metal bands". Needs sourcing though, and the bolding and "ealy material" comments need removing as that's a POV minefield. Some form of comment at the top of the article about it being a list of bands described as "nu metal" by a professional journalist at some point in the career should be added (or words to that effect; reliable sources, not webzines, blogs or forums, in other words). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I've started trying to address the problem of sourcing by adding a reliable source for each band on the last (I've got as far as "D") and removing everything I couldn't immediately find one for. If other sources come to light, brilliant (as a starting point I used the Tommy Udo book, MusicMight and Allmusic) but a good rule of thumb would be: Don't add anything to the list without a reliable source. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Looking much better. Tagged for a year as having no sources, it took this to get someone who cared off their duff. Thanks. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here @ 19:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Literally every band on the list is now referenced. Better sourcing can almost certainly be found, but (whilst it's not an article or genre that I particularly care about) as a point of principle, it's incredibly easy to source stuff like this. AfD is not supposed to be used as a way of getting editors "off their arse" to sort sourcing problems. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Meh. It worked. It's a troublesome list that I've been watching for several months now. Back and forth, back and forth.. notable bands, some local band the drummer thinks is nu metal so should be on the list.. bold, remove bold.. over and over.. with sourcing in place, future additions can be removed immediately if they do not provide a source. Ground rules needed to be set, which Afd is most certainly appropriate for. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here @ 03:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  — Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 03:13, 28 May 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.