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.
Keep It's a long list, but because it's a very complete one. I think it's not that different from other all-female bands lists (example: List_of_all-female_bands). Most of the bands don't have links, but I was about to complete it creating pages for some of the bands without a wiki entry created yet. It's not a purely statistical list but a complete all-female metal bands list, the fact the most complete all-female metal band list you can find in internet, collected after years of research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metaladies (talk • contribs) 16:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The edited entry (by Tnxman307) shows a list that has passed from a complete list of 440 bands to a limited of 15 with a wiki entry. Now it seems to be in line with the wiki policies. I just have to agree, but now it's an incomplete band list, as incomplete as it has 425 bands left.
Redirect as above. Good to see someone cleaned it up by removing the non-notable ones though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - If only because musical classifications are inherently hard to determine (one person's metal is another's classic rock is another's rock and roll). TNXMan 23:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I specified all the subgenres included in the list, but this specification was deleted. If metal is that subjective, what's the point in having a list like List of heavy metal bands? The first in this list is AC/DC. Is AC/DC heavy metal or hard rock? Everybody will agree to add AC/DC to a metal bands list. So the same for an all-female metal bands list. In fact the first band in this list is AC/DSHE, the all-female AC/DC tribute band. --Metaladies (talk) 10:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Supposing one did want to browse WP articles of all-female metal bands, how would one do it? The concept of "List of all-female metal bands" seems in keeping with WP:LISTPURP regarding the purpose of lists (or alternatively could be made an Index or perhaps a category, or maybe a template if there are only a small number of notable such bands) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD/Lists. If whether they're metal or not is in dispute, a source could be included, though if there's one in the band's article, adding it to the list also strikes me as redundant and tacky. Categorization by gender is acceptable if there's some notability to that categorization Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality#Special_subcategories; All female band does a fair job of observing how this is the case and serving as the "head article" for the lists. Or, I suppose genres could be added to the entries in the List of all-female bands; that might help serve more focused browsing interests. WP:NOT#STATS is about statistics and isn't relevant to this kind of list. Шизомби (talk) 05:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWP:NOT#STATS, is the reason proposed for deleting the list. As Шизомби said above, the list is not an statistical one. Checking one by one the five rules in WP:NOT#STATS not to be violated, this list doesn't brake any of them. So I agree with Шизомби, WP:NOT#STATS isn't relevant to this kind of list. About deleting the items without link, as done by TN: I think it shouldn't be deleted, as they are not against any WP policy. As it's written in Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates: Lists can include items that are not linked (see e.g. List of compositions by Franz Schubert); or items for which there are yet no articles (red links). So there's no reason for deleting the bands without an entry in WP. Taking this in consideration, I think the original list is in line with the WP policies, and it's not a merge of List of all-female bands, as the list of all-female metal bands actually is longer than this one, and gives extra information as the genre of the band. I think the list should be kept as it was defined originally. --Metaladies (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that "Lists can include items that are not linked [...] or items for which there are yet no articles (red links)." However, in the case of Schubert compositions the argument in favor of a comprehensive list which includes unlinked material is probably WP:Inherent notability, a somewhat controversial subject. It's probably easier to find broader consensus for WP:IHN of Schubert's works than for metal bands. With WP:REDLINKs, that's done "to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because it would be notable and verifiable." Thus, the argument could be made to include some bands that don't have articles, but deleting ones for which N, V, RS could not be met also appears acceptable. Шизомби (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, but in cases such band lists, I think each of their items have inherent notability, as each of them have the same relevance within the list. All them make the list a complete one. Once one item is missing the list is incomplete, losing notability itself and quality as an information source. What could be more inherent notable in an all-female metal bands list than an all-female metal band? But as you said, this is a very controversial subject.--Metaladies (talk) 23:14, 30 December 2009 (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.