Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of straight edge groups (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 delete. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 06:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

List of straight edge groups
A DRV consensus determined that the previous outcome of an AfD discussion on this article was improper. Although a majority at DRV favored outright deletion, consensus for this result was not present at DRV, so the matter is resubmitted to AfD for new consideration. Please consult both the original AfD and DRV before commenting here. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and categorize. I've looked through both the AfD and DRV, and I see no problem with changing this into a category.  -- stubblyh ea d | T/c 16:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as before it should be a category not a article as the article stands it is more a category than a article Whispering(talk/c) 16:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Question:  assuming delete and categorize succeeds.  How do you categorize after a page is deleted?  The data is off the web as soon as the delete happens.  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 17:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There are a few ways to deal with that. One would be to temporarily userfy the page, using that to add the category to the bands with articles.  When you're done, you could either put it up for speedy deletion, or blank the page for use as a sandbox. -- stubblyh ea d | T/c 19:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep lists are not the same as categories, lists allow a range of cross references not available through categorisation. Paul foord 23:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, no need to further categorize. I nominated this list for the original AfD, and still feel that a category does the work better. The closing admin on that AfD asked me to categorize the list once he felt consensus was reached, and I have already done this, so no further action needs to be taken if this is to be deleted. -- H·G (words/works) 07:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - while I don't think relisting to reach better consensus is a bad idea, I disagree with Xoloz's statement that "a DRV consensus determined that the previous outcome...was improper." As I read it, the consensus of the DRV was that the AFD was handled properly--every user involved in the DRV except the nominator endorsed the decision, and not a single one of the endorsing votes say that any decision made was improper. -- H·G (words/works) 07:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Read carefully there: most folks are endorsing outright deletion. The term "improper" is not intended to imply the closer erred necessarily, only that the result is disfavored.  The "outcome [i.e. not the closure]... was improper." Xoloz 15:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * By the time of the DRV, categorization had already been completed, so an endorsement for outright deletion isn't unexpected. But point taken. -- H·G (words/works) 19:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, now that the categories that replace the list are in place. Mango juice talk 18:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete list and keep category. --Slgr @ ndson (page - messages - contribs) 18:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep why can't categories exist in tandem with list? Lists serve their own functions, they are more pesky and wrought with deadlinks, but that's the fuckn' fun of them, why delete them? If anything we should have a new kind of link: A GREEN LINK, which denotes a link which needs to be developed. The dead/RED links should either be converted to bold text or deleted. Yeah deadlinks are band but their should be some way that new links are easily inserted in to our wiki-world. What I like about lists is how they often are added to by newbies, whereas the newbies may not know how to properly introduce a idea in an article's talk page. Again why get rid of the tool known as lists? I dont understand the motivation behind this movement. Please explain. Xsxex 05:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * keep. the categories still won't be comprehensive. a list at least has the possbility and again will compel people to create new entries for bands. Categories for bands work with big genres. Straight edge isn't a big genre. Looking at the categories vs the list should actually sum up the difference and the need for the list, since over half of the bands on the list aren't on the category, not because they aren't notable to the topic but because no one has bothered to create a wiki, again, there is a difference. Ondcp 11:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as has already been categorized. Molerat 16:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete due to category RainbowCrane 07:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment please see the Guideline at Categories, lists, and series boxes Paul foord 09:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Molerat. --Zach Hammond 17:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, redundant with category. --Aquillion 19:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete looks just like the category page that has already been created. Eluchil404 23:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - per above reasons. Wickethewok 16:31, 9 August 2006 (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.