Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rock operas


 * 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 Placebo Effect 15:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

List of rock operas

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unsourced list of a topic that is already covered by a category. This list has the same problems that the other articles like Concept Album have had. people add things that are not truly rock operas, for example the Bat Out Of Hell albums. Many items are also concept albums and not rock operas. Musicals like Evita are also listed for some reason. I think this much better covered by the catagory and much easier to police that way. Ridernyc 04:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom, use categories. lists seems to get incorrect entries fairly regularly. MarsRover —Preceding comment was added at 04:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete -- per nom. Przepla 12:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete if not already covered by categories, it would make a good category. As a list, it's a textbook example of "indiscriminate information".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandsford (talk • contribs) 18:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.--Bedivere 21:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not fix it instead of simply erasing it? - The list has rock operas in it. The solution proposed above seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  Rather than simply deciding whether or not to delete it, perhaps the focus of the discussion should be how to fix it, retaining what is valuable and removing the rest.  That would be a lot more productive than undoing all the good work done on this list.  It wouldn't take too much effort to contact the contributors of the article.  They'd probably be motivated to clean it up.  We know there are rock operas in the world, and there's no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't have a list of them.  An unreferenced tag and a clean up tag probably would have been more appropriate than a AfD nom.   Th e Tr ans hu man ist    04:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Why even have this list (clean or not)? it looks just like a category page. A bunch of links organized alphabetically. Except this one has errors and needs regular maintainance. Same links don't even send you to the correct article (ex. Zoid) you wouldn't have that problem with categories. MarsRover 05:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Query - By the way, what good is posting to an AfD "discussion" if the "discussers" merely vote and not check back in? Without a back and forth exchange, can we really call this a discussion? If the discussers don't check the page for replies, they have no opportunity to change their minds in response to replies.  Does that actually produce a consensus?    Th e Tr ans hu man ist     04:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Policy lookup: - Going straight to AfD may not be the appropriate way to handle unverified material. According to the policy Verifiability: "Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider moving it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the fact template, or tag the article by adding refimprove or unreferenced. Leave an invisible HTML comment, a note on the talk page, or an edit summary explaining what you have done."  The editors were never given a chance in this case, and I doubt any of them know about this AfD, which I believe was premature.  Th e Tr ans hu man ist    04:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is for the most part a procedural clean up AFD. A list like this should be a category.  As far as letting the editors know, Take a look at the contributors, basically nothing but hit and run ip's.  Why clean this up and the category up.  Why do we need redundant info.  Trust me I Know what I'm doing.  Ive spent the last 2-3 months cleaning up the concept album article.  Also list of concept albums has been deleted multiple times, so why should list of rock operas still be around. Ridernyc 09:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Lists are not redundant with categories. AfD is not cleanup. AndyJones 19:40, 17 October 2007 (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.