Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skiffle bands


 * 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 of the debate was redirect to Skiffle music. Rynne and Zoe are most persuasive. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 01:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Skiffle bands
Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Of the entire list, only The Quarrymen and Tommy Steele are internal links. All external links appear to be mirrored from skiffle.net/links, the main page of which is already linked on skiffle music. Delete as nominator. - Rynne 01:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Change to Redirect to Skiffle music.--み使い Mitsukai 02:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Skiffle music. Cnwb 03:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Skiffle music. Capitalistroadster 04:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename to List of Skiffle Groups, and verify per lists such as List of British hard rock and heavy metal musical groups or performers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcuk (talk • contribs)
 * Merge to Skiffle music with redlink deletion. Ewlyahoocom 18:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename to List of skiffle groups. No similar list of such groups exists on the Internet, and is thus a valuable resource.  External links exist for the purpose of giving the reader more information about each group (since most bands do not have their own Wikipedia article), information about which is available generally only on German language websites that are difficult for English readers to negotiate.  Badagnani 19:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Most of the linked sites aren't written in English anyway. If English speakers can't negotiate the German links page, then the linked websites in German, Swedish, etc. are going to be completely useless  (,, etc.).  Furthermore, the links to English pages are all for modern skiffle groups which fail WP:MUSIC .  This list of NN and non-English websites is not a resource which is necessary or useful to Wikipedia. - Rynne 01:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No, not completely useless. Please speak for yourself; I do not speak German myself, yet these sites are useful to me as a Wikipedia user.  Babelfish allows one to translate texts from German to English and I have also emailed some of these groups in order to gain more information about this style of music.  You're correct that most, if not all, skiffle groups, as performing a music that is not of mass interest in popular culture (i.e., it doesn't sell large numbers of records), might not be "notable" enough to merit their own articles here; this is all the more reason why the genre deserves special treatment in our encyclopedia, as information about the genre is very difficult to find elsewhere.  We are building something that will have information on all genres of music, not simply the ones that are most popular at a given time.  Badagnani 06:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename to List of skiffle groups, per Badagnani's rationale. Adbarnhart 19:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename to List of skiffle groups, per Badagnani's rationale. dadwasp 20:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: dadwasp has made only two edits: this discussion and Skiffle bands (Special:Contributions/Dadwasp) . - Rynne 02:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Skiffle music. See no need to merge any of the content. -- Krash (Talk) 01:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Skiffle music. If this article were actually a list of Wikipedia articles, then the rename option would be appropriate, but this is a list of external links, something specifically considered inappropriate at WP:NOT.  User:Zoe|(talk) 19:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This statement is inaccurate. This is a list of all skiffle bands in the world that are known about, supplemented with links.  You do not come out and say "delete all the bands" in the redirect; is that what you mean?  Why not just say it?  I must admit that it is very upsetting that another Wikipedia editor would simply vote to throw away such a large amount of effort that went into collecting these band names and locations; it's not something I would ever do to you or another editor.  And are you not aware that there are Wikipedia articles with lists of bands in many other genres?  Why is skiffle being singled out for deletion?  As mentioned above (which no one has addressed), roots musical styles are often culturally and historically significant, while commercially unsuccessful (meaning most bands will not meet WP notability requirements for their own articles).  It does not mean that the content about the bands should be deleted.  Badagnani 20:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you went to all the trouble, but collections of external links are not appropriate Wikipedia content. If you want to write articles about all of those people, and they pass WP:MUSIC, then a List of Skiffle bands with links to the Wikipedia articles is a valid article.  But a list of external links is not.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with the genre.  If you think there are other lists of bands that are only external links, please let me know on my Talk page, and I'll nominate those for AfD as well.  User:Zoe|(talk) 22:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No, this is inaccurate. It is not a list of links but a list of skiffle groups around the world, which contain links to their websites, to assist users in finding out more about them (as these sites are often not easy to locate).  It is very disturbing that you seem to gain gratification from trying to destroy the contributions of another editor.  And, even worse, that you simply ignore what I had said above about skiffle being a roots musical form that is not well understood, and deserving of coverage here (in the same way that lists of numerous other musical genres have articles here at Wikipedia).  I would not treat another editor here in such a way.  Badagnani 05:25, 4 March 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.