Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of band name etymologies
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep. Majorly (o rly?) 15:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- List of band name etymologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
It's a list of information that belongs in each bands article. The list will become so big over time that it will be impossible to maintain. Sourcing the article would be a superhuman task. Delete Pax:Vobiscum 11:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If you wanted to know the origin of a band's name, wouldn't you just look in their article? Nice to know there's a band called "Ravioli of the Drooling Cereal," though. ObtuseAngle 13:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per:
- --Infrangible 16:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As noted elsewhere, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't justify this article, which would be completely indistinguishable from List of bands named after anything at all or List of bands named after nothing in particular. ObtuseAngle 20:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Infrangible TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 08:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep not attributed does not mean not attributable. Sourcing will be difficult is not a reason to delete. If you want to be hardcore, remove all bands that don't have a ref. I'll add a couple refs while I'm at it. - Peregrine Fisher 08:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Peregrine Fisher. Mathmo Talk 09:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you explain what you think is useful about the article? Just because something is true and can be sourced doesn't mean it should be included in Wikipedia. My main point is that the info about name etymology belongs in the articles about the bands. Having a list that will grow to be gigantic is of no use. Pax:Vobiscum 12:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Indiscriminate, unmaintainable, unverified, information. What can be verified belongs in the articles for the bands, not bunged together into an artificial list. Otto4711 18:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Pergrine, certainly very useful list per WP:LIST. Wikipedia is also not paper. Matthew 20:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- NOT#PAPER is not a blanket pass to put up anything that comes to mind. If an article otherwise fails WP:NOT or some other policy, then the fact that this isn't paper doesn't save it. Otto4711 21:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep-Important article, no point in deleting..
- Keep fascinating article. Should be footnoted. Noroton 00:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, indiscriminate info that can and should be noted on individual bands' pages instead. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ILIKEIT are not solid reasoning to keep this article on. Krimpet 18:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.