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 delete. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of melodic death metal bands[edit]

Despite having nice little flags next to each entry, this list is superseded by Category:Melodic death metal bands, and has no real purpose beyond the category except edit wars. Note that the rationale for the category should be changed so that it accommodates bands that at one point in their careers played melodic death metal but no longer do. Chubbles 02:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It makes no sense to call a metalcore band that released one melodic death metal album a melodic death metal band, which is what would be implied by including such group in a melodic death metal groups category. That is one of of the advantages of the list over the category, such group can be added to the list and a caption can be added next to the wikilink explaining their melodic death metal status. Also, there have been very little edit wars in the list of melodic death metal bands, and even so just because an article has had edit wars does not mean it should be deleted. Deletion of an article is not the solution to edit wars or vandalism. --Leon Sword 02:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete origional research--Sefringle^Talk 03:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not about edit wars, vandalism, or the like. A self maintaining category can do much of what you just said, aside from telling the user whether they're melodic death metal now, or in the past, in which case, the articles of the bands themselves should reflect that. You can also weed out the "metalcore" bands that are put into this genre by patrolling it as well and making the corrections on the bands page. To me the list is just a duplicate of information, as I was going to add the category tag to all those bands in lieu of adding the prod. Slowly but surely, lists like this are being weeded out and deleted. -- Shatterzer0 03:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already gone through and added the category to all the bands that were on the list (I always do that before nomming a list of genre bands for deletion). Chubbles 03:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Listing bands based on a genre is a very subjective task as this cannot be established unless the artists themselves have announced their inclusion into a particular genre. So, delete per WP:OR Corpx 04:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Corpx's fine reasoning. This is not just a genre, but a subgenre and an unusually subjective one at that. It's original research unless cited. A Train^talk 22:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This one took a lot of thought, espcially as i used this page a few times just this week and tryed to consider it without imagining the probablity that there are other pages with simlar genre related listings. Basically i think the comments following the nomination are completely ignoring policy, but the nomination is correct in that this page is redundent with an already existent category with the same information. -- Jimmi Hugh 00:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You guys do realize that all the bands that are kept listed in that article are only there because their respective articles state that they are a melodic death metal band. Might as well delete all those band articles too since most of them don't have their genres cited thus they must be original research. What happened to consensus? Also, you guys do realize that the melodic death metal groups category would also count as original research according to your reasoning. Especially since all the bands that were added to the category were taken directly from the list of melodic death metal bands. Your argument is flawed it seems. --Leon Sword 03:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just point out here that the reasoning put forth to open the AfD is based solely on the list's being entirely redundant with the category, so long as the definition in the category is slightly modified (as I think it should be). Chubbles 03:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles should not be deleted if they are not entirely (or majority) original research. The categorization issue on the article pages should be at best addressed on the talk pages. Corpx 03:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, most of the band articles are uncited so they would count as original research, but that's a whole different issue. I would still like an explanation as to why you guys want to delete this list for supposed original research and not the category, even though all the bands in the category where taken directly from the list. --Leon Sword 03:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well currently the list does nothing but list the bands. Although I didnt endorse this, a category would serve the exact same purpose, but keep the non-notable bands off this list. Still be WP:OR violation though :) Corpx 03:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are no non-notable bands on the list, they are removed as soon as I check my watchlist. This is actually another disadvantage of the category, new bands that are added to it won't show up on any watchlist and all the non-notable bands with articles are going to end up being added without being noticed right away. By the way do you guys also intend to delete all the other lists of whatever genre bands? Because there is a lot of them and if I'm correct, there is no policy stating a list and similar category can't co-exist. Also citations only need to be provided for stuff that is likely to be challenged according to WP:V, and a band's genre on Wikipedia is usually the result of consensus, thus it's not really original research. Providing citations for most of the bands on the list would be somewhat useless, it would be like providing a citation for the Metallica article stating that Metallica is a metal band even though it's somewhat obvious and very unlikely to be challenged. --Leon Sword 02:46, 14 July 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.