Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of trends in music from the United States


 * 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 - kept

Timeline of trends in music from the United States
I'm not really sure what the purpose of this page is - it simply just seems to be an esentially blank page that hosts a couple of templates that I imagine can be found elsewhere. Delete. Estel (talk) 13:06, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. Pointless&mdash;Trevor Caira 15:06, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Useless, especially considering we have an extensive article at Music of the United States which puts things roughly in chronological order. [[User:Livajo|&#1051;&#1080;&#1074;&#1072;&#1081; | &#9786;]] 15:48, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * This appears to be much more worldly. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 17:12, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Why delete this?  Seems interesting.  [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 17:11, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * It's the top-level page for the timelines of trends in US music. It is useless except as an organizational tool and a place to link to.  Or are you suggesting deleting all the US music timelines? Tuf-Kat 21:59, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. The formatting is unusual, but in essence it's little different from all the other "List of..." pages on Wikipedia. iMeowbot~Mw 22:24, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is an extra page with no information on it. Tomato 23:18, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. No one is ever, ever going to type in "Timeline of trends in music from the United States" and hope to find this page. As an organisational page it doesn't seem to be very useful. A broader music page may be useful, but this is hopelessly confused. Picking the trends out of the "timelines" articles is an uphill task. They look like collections of what might loosely be called "milestones" to me.Dr Zen 02:22, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * How do you know? Are crystal balls in production now? Dan100 09:53, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * (I already voted) -- I really don't understand the objections to this. When lists and such are divided into multiple pages, the original home becomes nothing more than a placeholder for links to the sub-lists.  List of movies, List of aircraft, list of albums, List of city listings by country, Political families of the world, list of songs -- these are all pages with nothing more than a few links to the real lists (and a timeline is nothing but a list in chronological order)... What's the difference if it's a template or two, or plain wikitext? Tuf-Kat 03:15, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * If it really bothers somebody so much, at least redirect it to Timeline of trends in music from the United States to 1930 or something. Tuf-Kat 03:19, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. A pointless user unfriendly page. Iam 03:24, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Given the number of articles which link to it, this is clearly serving some kind of organizational need. Formats can be fixed.  Keep.  Rossami (talk) 05:51, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Concur. Needs TLC, but keep. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:25, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment - all of the pages that link to it (at least, of those that I have checked) only link to it through one of the two templates that are on that page anyway. Estel (talk) 09:40, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. No reason at all to delete it. Dan100 09:52, Dec 22, 2004 (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.