Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bands named after other performers' songs

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 no consensus. X clamation point 22:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of bands named after other performers' songs

Trivial intersection here, no sources. So an act named themselves after another act's song, big deal. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Löschen: As per nom. This should be a category, not an article. – Jerry^teps 03:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This shouldn't be anything, really. Delete it with fire. JuJube (talk) 04:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adding sources is easy as I have just demonstrated. Big deal and similar dismissive sentiments are quite inadequate as a reason to delete. The category argument is also inadmissable per WP:CLS: 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. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep pending sourcing. Viable article as it demonstrates the influence performers and their works have on other performers and their works, but this needs a lot of sourcing. I'm voting based upon the viability of the topic, plus to some degree the execution, but this needs some pretty extensive work. 23skidoo (talk) 18:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indiscriminate and far from useful. There is nothing notable about a band naming oneself after another bands song, and creating a list of them serves no purpose. I am a big believer in not having lists which can surely never be complete or balanced even within the criteria they set themselves and this is a classic example. Each case would also require a source, as there are untold cases of urban myth surrounding the assumption that a band is named after a song and each and every band would therefore need to be verified. In the same way, the list would then be limited to cases of "bands names after other artist’s songs as stated by the band in a situation that makes it easily verifiable." The author clearly realises this and has added an “Incorrect associations" section which needs to be removed as its entire premise is on quoting myth. The only useful act keeping this article would lead up to is setting more precedent for other lists of spurious data to be compared between articles, where the information is far better off on the bands page in cases where appropriate and sourced. Also note, if this somehow ends as a keep, it needs renaming to artists, not performers'. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination a slightly longer phrasing of "who cares". List with clear limiting criteria that can support a standalone article... the secondary sections of the list are a bit more troubling in that regard (I can see this getting unwieldy if not monitored), but deletion isn't the answer. Townlake (talk) 04:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and then delete A lot of the content here duplicates that at List of band name etymologies. Move anything sourced that the other article lacks, and then delete this one. Black Kite 21:46, 7 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.