Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pop punk bands (3rd 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   no consensus. — A itias  //  discussion  21:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Serves as a needless battleground for edit warring. The page has a warning at the top that only bands with articles that explicitly call them pop punk are to be added. We already have something that serves this function, which is Category:Pop punk groups. This list ends up being a seesaw of additions and deletions based purely upon opinions. As it stands, it fails WP:OR, but adding a few hundred citations wouldn't improve it, because it's frankly redundant. Chubbles (talk) 15:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete As the list is organized alphabetically, it provides no additional information to the category and so is redundant and useless. Drawn Some (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even though I've just spent who knows how long trying to tidy it up once again by cross referencing bands linked with their wikipedia articles/other sources/my neutral knowledge and fixing dead links etc. Anyway, yes, no need for a list when a category works better by linking directly to the relevant article. Also prevents random kids adding their garage band and introducing random red links. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Nouse4aname; as a more loosely defined genre, this is a battleground for people to add random bands. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 16:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep- Nominator's statements of "its better served as a category" and "its a battleground" are unconvincing. The latter is best dealt with by vigilance and the occaisional weeding out of bad additions. The former is meaningless. Categories and lists are meant to co-exist, not be mutually exclusive, deleting one in favor of the other is pointless. In short, any problems with this page are better solved by editing, not by deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There are some areas in which both a list and a category make sense. Take List of Japanese baseball players, for instance. This includes many red links, because not all professional Japanese baseball players have articles; there is a Category:Japanese baseball players, but the list includes additional information not in the categories. For this list, however, every red link is automatically removed by editors who watchlist the list (and so, in that sense, vigilance isn't the problem). So then, this article is an alphabetical listing of pop punk bands with articles. And the category is...an alphabetical listing of pop punk bands with articles. The category is much easier to manage and does the exact same thing. Chubbles (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The list is currently an alphabetical listing of bands. The category is currently and alphabetical listing of bands. The difference is, a category can never be anything BUT an alphabetical list of X, while a list can show redlinks where articles might need created, might offer explanation of why a specific item is on the list, etc. In short, a list can provide more detail and has more potential than a category can ever have. Just because right now its just a list doesn't mean it can't be more. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This list, as it is now, does not allow for redlinks. It has a note at the top saying that only bands with articles are to be added. Editors enforce this regularly on the page. If this note is removed, and red links are allowed to stand on the page, it would then have a purpose, and I would withdraw the nomination. But I can't imagine I'd find consensus on that - those who maintain this list immediately remove bands that are redlinked without further comment and seem to believe they have the right to do so. Also, we haven't solved the gigantic OR issue, here. This list is a big opinion piece about what constitutes pop punk, and bands are regularly added and subtracted based upon today's editors' opinions. Chubbles (talk) 17:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason that red links are removed is because the vast majority of pop punk bands that should have an article already do. Editors adding red links tend to be adding their own band or some other random non-notable band. I tend to do a quick google search before removing any red links just to be certain though. Leaving red links in my opinion simply encourages people to waste their time making an article that will soon be deleted... at least in this situation. Nouse4aname (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Being the target of editwars isn't a valid reason for deletion. Ask for an edit protect, if it's such an issue.  Lugnuts  (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep and semi-protect Most of the edit warring would be solved if anonymous IP users weren't able to edit the list. Almost all of the bands that don't qualify to be on the list are added by anonymous IP users. The category is not a suitable replacement for the list; they are different beasts, and they have different methods of adding or deleting bands.Spylab (talk) 22:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep as stated above, misuse of the list does not mean the list should be deleted. Strummer25 (talk) 11:16, 17 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.