Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of alternative electronic and industrial music artists

Add links
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 delete. Cirt (talk) 11:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of alternative electronic and industrial music artists

[edit]
List of alternative electronic and industrial music artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The majority of these "artists" don't even have google hits, let alone wikipedia articles. The list is unsourced, unmaintainable, and people are just arbitrarily adding their "projects", even if all they have is a computer recording of them and a friend mashing a keyboard and uploading it to myspace.

Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates would suggest that the (valid) entries here are much more suited to being moved to a Category. Note point #5 on the disadvantages of lists. Freqsh0 (talk) 01:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and cleanup. I don't see any difference to this list and the dozens of similar lists in the category Category:Lists of musicians by genre. If the artist doesn't have a Google hit, as the nom stated, then the artist shouldn't be on the list. There should be only a handful of redlinks on the page, awaiting page creation, rather than the majority of the list being redlinked. Therefore, lists and categories work hand-in-hand, as categories can't contain redlinks. Remember, this should contain notable alt/industrial artists. How is this "unmaintable"? And the "useless category at best" reply isn't even an arguement of why it should be deleted. Lugnuts (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep All genres have lists like these. Helps people find new artists within the genre. --Shandristhe azylean 08:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Indiscriminate and far too large a categorisation. I'd support splitting it into two articles, but I was a little put off by the exclusion of Babylon Zoo. The related categories already exist, so it's very redundant. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 15:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are industrial and electronic really that close in nature? I can't believe you've asked that! Lugnuts (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All industrial music is electronic, however not all electronic music is industrial. The definition of "industrial" can be blurry and disputed, but sometimes the term "alternative electronic" refers to artists associated with this general genre. This is done as a way to distinguish it from Trance, House, etc, which is what most people think of when "electronic" music is mentioned. This is kind of the "darker" side of electronic, if you will. So, it's not "alternative industrial", but rather "alternative electronic" OR "industrial". Freqsh0 (talk) 08:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, it is true that virtually every genre seems to have these. However, I fail to see why any list like this exists. You can simply go to the category page for a specific genre, and get the same type of list, except in those cases it's automatically self-maintained and bands actually need to be notable enough to have articles.

As for how this is "unmaintainable", it cites zero references, and I don't see anybody adding literally thousands anytime soon to back up every entry. Again, having a category addresses this issue, because said references are in the actual article, and until the article is sufficient, it doesn't land on the category page.

Without references, how does anyone verify whether an artist qualifies? Unless someone can claim to be an authority on every artist in this genre, those with a moderate level of knowledge will just assume that these might be appropriate artists that they simply have not yet heard of.

Based on this, and the fact that a Category page provides anything this can offer and more, I see no reason why anyone would want to keep this article (aside from aspiring computer musicians that haven't released anything but like to sneak themselves on here, knowing it's impossible to challenge). -Freqsh0 (talk) 08:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that :Cat's dont (A)promote the creation of missing Articles, (B)sort information in various possible ways, (C)allow for additional relevent information. Please read WP:CLN for futher explanation on why :Cats and Lists can co-exist. Wikipedia:Lists only holds that the info should Verifiable, it makses no mention that it should show all its references, I would think that thoes would be contained in each bluelink Article. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 10:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give you A, but B) it's sorted alphabetically, same as a Cat, c) It has no other relevant information and is just a straight list. Regarding verifying info in the bluelink article, that's all fine and well for the bluelink ones, but what about when half of the list is red? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freqsh0 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 28 September 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_alternative_electronic_and_industrial_music_artists&oldid=1138003315"