Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bands from the Netherlands

:{{la|List of bands from the Netherlands}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_bands_from_the_Netherlands Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|List of bands from the Netherlands}})

I withdraw the nomination. // Appears to be an indiscriminate collection of information and / or a link farm, with no additional meaningful information provided. Given the amount of red links, the category {{cl|Dutch musical groups}} is much more useful. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep A list with clear inclusion criteria for notable subjects. If cleanup is required, then remove the redlinks. Note that lists and categories go hand-in-hand per WP:CLN. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 11:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep. Could certainly be improved, but how can a list with criteria of 'notable band' and 'from the Netherlands' be classed as 'indiscriminate'? The 'category is better' argument doesn't wash. Sources certainly available, e.g. [http://www.gigwise.com/features/106860/best-new-dutch-bands-&-artists-from-holland-netherlands---rock-pop], [https://www.theguardian.com/music/2012/jun/11/sounds-netherlands-history-dutch-pop], [http://louderthanwar.com/hollands-burning-there-is-a-vibrant-dutch-underground-of-great-new-bands-that-you-should-know-about/]. --Michig (talk) 13:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep – This qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to :Category:Dutch musical groups and subcategories therein. The article can be copy edited to refine it a bit, and red links can be removed, or if reliable sources that suggest notability for some of the red-linked bands are available, references can be added, which facilitates the creation of new articles about notable topics as per WP:REDLINK.

:This article also qualifies as a functional navigational aid per WP:LISTPURP. WP:LISTPURP is satisfied in part by comparing page view statistics. This article has been [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-90&pages=List_of_bands_from_the_Netherlands viewed 3,602 times] in the last 90 days, whereas the Dutch musical groups category page has only been [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-90&pages=Category:Dutch_musical_groups viewed 390 times] in the last 90 days. The article itself is of more interest and more useful for Wikipedia's readers. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. The list certainly needs cleanup, but NorthAmerica1000 is correct that lists are not automatically deemed to duplicate categories: there are situations where a list and a category rightly should both exist to complement each other. For example, Dutch musical groups are not all filed directly in {{cl|Dutch musical groups}}, but rather many are subcategorized by genre, city or province — which means that if you don't already know what genre a band is in and/or what particular part of the Netherlands they're from, you're going to have a hard time finding it through the category system. And accordingly, the list is the only available method of "one-stop shopping" all Dutch bands in one place. The list should definitely be pruned for redlinks — lists of bands are one of those topics where there's an exceptionally high risk of non-notable garage bands who will never have a Wikipedia article adding themselves to the list anyway as a form of self-promotion, so the list should rightly have tight inclusion criteria (e.g. only bluelinks, or redlinks permitted only if supported by a notability-showing source...although the latter is fairly easy to game with fake or non-RS references, especially when the "sources" are likely to be in a language that most users of en can't actually read, and thus may not be the best option here) — but needing cleanup is not a deletion reason in and of itself. If our category system were structured differently than it is, then lists might become redundant, but with the category system we do have they're not. Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.