please consider the following point in the article's discussion section: Talk:List of pop punk bands, Thanks Xsxex 17:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Its me again. Well this article has been here for a while since the AfD decision. The Category: Pop punk groups is pretty reflective, but not competely reflective of this list. Of course the Category doesnt assist in dividing the bands by dates or provide a list of independent pop punk bands. But, as it seems, this list will be deleted at some point. One thing that is going to be a problem though, is when people start vandalizing the pop punk article with more band names. Thats the good thing about this list. It receives the vandalism and the pop punk article is spared a bit. I do now understand the importance and utility of Categories, but in the meantime, I would rather have this list than more vandalism on the pop punk article. The list might seem to be arbitrary, but its acting as a buffer and it also can be a reminder that wikipedia needs to figure out new ways to sort and represent information. Xsxex 15:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 categorize; will be done soon. Mango juice^talk 14:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of pop punk bands[edit]

Same as my nomination for List of straight edge groups above. These types of things really work better as categories. If there isn't already a sufficient category, I'd vote categorize; otherwise just delete. -- H·G (^words/_works) 19:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The list used to be a part of the pop punk article, and since it was a vandalism magnet I advocated its removal. Now it seems nicer and better maintained, but it still has the arbitrary feeling to it. Punkmorten 20:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize. That way inclusion criteria are just article criteria. -- GWO
Categorize per Gareth (and, I suppose, per nom), although I readily recognize that there are those who prefer lists for topics such as these (inasmuch as categories can't comprise redlinks) and would surely consider arguments toward the proposition that we ought to preserve a list here. Joe 04:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Works same way as categories, but allows red links. WesleyDodds 07:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it should be a category not a article. Whispering 19:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize Per above. --Peephole 13:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unlike straight edge list, this one is not superceded by category. Grue 13:59, 27 July 2006 (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.