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 no consensus. Chaser - T 03:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of grunge supergroups[edit]

Twinkle didn't post it. I tried twice. Frustrating. Anyway, this list contains numerous semi-notable groups or sideprojects, but most of the notable info is already on the Supergroup page. As a reminder, only the list is up for deletion, not the group pages. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 01:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. —Kappa 01:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. —Kappa 01:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the supergroup page doesn't say anything about grunge... Kappa 01:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the bands, or the genre. Audioslave, Mad season, Temple of the Dog, Velvet Revolver, and Army of Anyone are listed on both pages, and that's exactly half of the bands listed on the page in question. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 02:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, there's half that isn't listed there. If they're notable enough for the general supergroup page, then list em there. If not, or if that page is getting too lengthy, then I don't see a problem with keeping this page. Tarc 02:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I guess everyone in the world but me knows that those are grunge groups so it doesn't need any explanation. Kappa 02:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what? J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 02:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Never mind, I'll leave to the grunge fans. Kappa 02:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Well OK. If for some reason I want to find grunge supergroups which I haven't heard of before, using the general supergroup page, I can use the simple method of clicking on every single supergroup and checking if the article says "grunge". That will only take about half an hour and I might find some other interesting bands in the process. Kappa 02:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So your a "keep" vote, right? Just trying to make it easier on our mop-endowed amigos. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 02:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I've voted keep below. Actually I think you should be able to merge it if you are clever. Kappa 07:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'm not completely sold on the need for the list... but I can't say that it doesn't deserve one...Balloonman 03:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Balloonman. Mathmo ^Talk 03:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete over-extensive, window for nns. Bulldog123 06:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of sources that attest inclusion into this genre. As of now, it is WP:OR to categorize them like this. Corpx 06:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unless Corpx can get Category:Grunge groups deleted on the basis that it's OR. Kappa 07:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the community seems to want listscruft, so let 'em eat cruft. Delete this, and you have to delete pretty much every list in wikipedia. Thanks!--Cerejota 01:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That !V seems to violate WP:POINT. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 14:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The list is currently only about two-thirds grunge. They did pretty well on including only supergroups, though (I only see one NN individual or band on the list). I wouldn't call it OR, but it is susceptible for genre edit-warring. That's not an argument for deletion. -Freekee 03:19, 14 August 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.