261:, "Developers of these redundant systems should not compete against each other in a destructive manner, such as by nominating the work of their competitors to be deleted because they overlap". The list should be used to improve the category, as suggested in guidelines, as the category contains poorly sourced articles. So i suggest this is closed and sanctions brought against the nominator if this and the disruption of the article continues. --
278:
Explain to me how the list differs in any way from the category apart from the columning. All I can see is an alphabetised list - which is what a category is. The references can be added to the band articles. At the very least, the list and category should be synchronised. I think the passage you
312:
clearly spells out the pros and cons of each and states attempts to delete one in favour of the other is considered inappropriate. "the "category camp" should not delete or dismantle
Knowledge's lists, and the "list camp" shouldn't tear down Knowledge's category system - doing so wastes valuable
304:. Neither is favoured by the community, the consensus is that they both should coexist and compliment each other. That is the current consensus and this is not the place to argue in favour of one or the other and it is certainly innapropriate to use an afd to try and make a
279:
link to also doesn't mean what you say - I don't think it supports redundancy (and for the record, the reason for nomination is different - the previous one was because of the stigma attached to the label making it a synthesis and POV-pushing hotspot).
362:
I guess the problem with a category would be we'd lose the sources, and without that people would start adding whatever they wanted to the category without justification. But I agree with
Sceptre that the sources could be added to the band articles.
257:, bad faith nomination by the same editor who nominated it just two months ago where it was explained quite clearly that categories and lists are not exclusive. There is no valid reason to nominate the same article again. According to
84:
458:. This list could probably be reformatted and rewritten into something useful, since it's just an a list of blue links without commentary, but it's a perfectly reasonable subject for a list. -
408:
79:
144:
111:
106:
115:
473:
98:
478:
450:
426:
386:
372:
357:
346:
338:
326:
285:
270:
244:
221:
169:
63:
188:. The list that you want deleted complies with wikipedias current policy and guidlines and is by far a better list. You need to read
17:
152:
496:
254:
36:
495:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
469:
102:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
342:
300:
That it completey irrelevant. As has been pointed out many times and you well know that lists and categories
313:
resources. Instead, each should be used to update the other." The articles is also a valid fork of the main
217:
421:
382:
322:
266:
459:
446:
201:
94:
69:
160:
56:
364:
236:
334:
213:
209:
181:
156:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
415:
368:
305:
240:
442:
438:
309:
258:
232:
49:
235:; categories and lists "should not be considered to be in conflict with each other"
353:
281:
197:
189:
185:
165:
377:
Which is what the guidelines suggests doing. You use each to improve the other. --
132:
193:
204:
complies with each. It is sourced by reliable and varifiable sources and is
333:
We've gone through this, read the guidline. It supports our position.(
208:
influenced by personal opinion. Redundent my foot. If any thing, the
351:
Does it? As many people thought it would be better as a category...
489:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
314:
302:
should not be considered to be in conflict with each other
85:
Articles for deletion/List of emo artists (2nd nomination)
139:
128:
124:
120:
409:
list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions
253:No valid reason for deletion stated according to
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
499:). No further edits should be made to this page.
255:Knowledge:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion
180:At it again, eh? We've been through this. The
212:should be deleted, as it violates all policy.
8:
437:. Still seems like a reasonable list (per
155:(both sort alphabetically), which is what
80:Articles for deletion/List of emo artists
407:: This debate has been included in the
77:
7:
76:
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
153:Category:Emo musical groups
516:
441:) with decent references.
479:22:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
451:16:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
427:13:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
387:14:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
373:09:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
358:08:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
347:01:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
327:14:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
245:08:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
64:12:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
492:Please do not modify it.
286:22:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
271:21:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
222:12:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
170:11:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
75:AfDs for this article:
48:. Non-admin closure.
184:is nothing but pure
151:Wholly redundant to
202:List of emo artists
95:List of emo artists
70:List of emo artists
161:List of emo groups
44:The result was
477:
429:
412:
385:
325:
308:. The guideline
269:
210:List of emo bands
182:List of emo bands
157:List of emo bands
507:
494:
467:
465:
424:
418:
413:
403:
381:
380:
321:
320:
265:
264:
142:
136:
118:
60:
53:
34:
515:
514:
510:
509:
508:
506:
505:
504:
503:
497:deletion review
490:
461:
422:
416:
378:
318:
262:
138:
109:
93:
90:
73:
58:
51:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
513:
511:
502:
501:
484:
482:
481:
453:
431:
430:
400:
399:
398:
397:
396:
395:
394:
393:
392:
391:
390:
389:
337:not signed in)
331:
330:
329:
291:
290:
289:
288:
248:
247:
226:
225:
224:
163:redirects to.
149:
148:
89:
88:
87:
82:
74:
72:
67:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
512:
500:
498:
493:
487:
486:
485:
480:
475:
471:
466:
464:
457:
454:
452:
448:
444:
440:
436:
433:
432:
428:
425:
419:
410:
406:
402:
401:
388:
384:
376:
375:
374:
370:
366:
361:
360:
359:
356:
355:
350:
349:
348:
344:
340:
339:96.234.176.56
336:
332:
328:
324:
316:
311:
307:
303:
299:
298:
297:
296:
295:
294:
293:
292:
287:
284:
283:
277:
276:
275:
274:
273:
272:
268:
260:
256:
252:
246:
242:
238:
234:
230:
227:
223:
219:
215:
211:
207:
203:
199:
195:
191:
187:
183:
179:
176:
175:
174:
173:
172:
171:
168:
167:
162:
158:
154:
146:
141:
134:
130:
126:
122:
117:
113:
108:
104:
100:
96:
92:
91:
86:
83:
81:
78:
71:
68:
66:
65:
62:
61:
55:
54:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
491:
488:
483:
462:
455:
434:
404:
352:
335:13Tawaazun14
301:
280:
250:
249:
228:
214:13Tawaazun14
205:
177:
164:
150:
57:
50:
45:
43:
31:
28:
417:Fabrictramp
317:article. --
251:Speedy Keep
178:STRONG KEEP
423:talk to me
379:neon white
319:neon white
263:neon white
259:guidelines
460:A Man In
443:Klausness
474:past ops
470:conspire
145:View log
354:Sceptre
282:Sceptre
166:Sceptre
112:protect
107:history
439:WP:CLN
310:WP:CLN
233:WP:CLN
200:. The
196:, and
140:delete
116:delete
463:Bl♟ck
365:D0762
306:point
237:D0762
198:WP:RS
190:WP:OR
143:) – (
133:views
125:watch
121:links
52:Jamie
16:<
456:Keep
447:talk
435:Keep
405:Note
383:talk
369:talk
343:talk
323:talk
267:talk
241:talk
231:per
229:Keep
218:talk
194:WP:V
159:and
129:logs
103:talk
99:edit
46:keep
414:--
411:.
315:Emo
206:NOT
59:S93
472:|
449:)
420:|
371:)
345:)
243:)
220:)
192:,
186:OR
131:|
127:|
123:|
119:|
114:|
110:|
105:|
101:|
476:)
468:(
445:(
367:(
341:(
239:(
216:(
147:)
137:(
135:)
97:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.