MacGyverMagic/Mgm writes:

"Is there any article that was wrongly deleted within the past 3 days as a result of ignorance of the nominator or sheep voting by others without check the article and possible sources?"

Sorry, that was my fault. I wasn't following the discussion properly and thought it was about speedies. My apologies for dragging us briefly (if entertainingly, at least for me) up the wrong trouser leg.

Your timescale for this is a little short, but never mind. Let's take a look at the deletion log, this time only AfD deletes.

Well it was hard searching, because of the way in which the AfD link gets screwed when an article is deleted. So I stopped when I reached the first deletion that I think is rather dodgy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_power_b...

Now I hate those bloated, overdramatic monstrosities that are known as power ballads, but I cannot deny the encyclopedic value of having a list of them. The genre is well known, and is well described in the introduction: "a slow, quiet intro, and a gradual build to a dramatic climax, often followed by a quiet outro. String arrangements and even full orchestration are not uncommon. Lyrical themes tend toward romantic yearning, loss, pain or introspection."

The article was listed for deletion on the following premise: "Unmaintainable list. There are obviously thousands of power ballads."

Say what? The name of the article is "list of power ballads", not list of every single power ballad ever written." In fact I estimate that the article must have contained the name and artist details of about 400-500 songs. A valuable resource for a musicologist looking for source material for his thesis.

Reasons for deletion given by delete voters were:

"there is no pinpointed criteria to the nomenclature". True, but life is full of fuzzy categories. Normal editing and dispute resolution processes can be used to resolve ambiguities and differences of opinion.

"useless and unmaintainable list " Well useless to ''most'' people. But I find it useful if only because it gives me a list of artists and albums to steer clear of. The claim that it's unmaintainable is contradicted by the fact that it ''had'' been maintained, lovingly, with almost daily edits, by several editors, ever since its creation in April.

"Kinda hopelessly POV... What is a power ballad? Is "The Time Has Come (Pikachu's Goodbye)" a power ballad? Pika-Pika?! CHHHUUUUUU!!!! GMAFB" Perhaps it is! Why didn't he just discuss the question on the talk page? A neutral choice can be made by discussion. This is how Wikipedia works.

"the scope of the list is much, much broader than outlined by the power ballad article (which is in line with the I Love the 80s definition, for instance). I'd say cleanup, but if it's gotten this far it may be unsalvageable/unmaintainable." If true, this is a good reason for bold editing, not radical amputation. However the Power ballad article does admit of the wider definition, though it claims this is less common. Personally I'd be inclined to identify the power ballad as the mutant offspring of soft rock and torch song, and I'd have no hesitation in classing the works of Heart (1987, Alone) and Bonnie Tyler (1982, Total Eclipse of the Heart), and the like as power ballads, and it's easy enough to find credible references for these. Items for which no such reference can be found could be removed.

"A pointless list, with no clear definition or upper limit of entries." Seems to be a permutation of arguments already considered.

"Cleanup if possible, otherwise delete. Some songs IMO don't come under the category of "power ballad". 50 Cent is a rapper/hip-hop artist - since when did they write ballads? The list was good when it was uncluttered (see page history)." This "problem" could obviously be solved by a simple revert.

And in the keep arguments:

"Cleanup. This page doesn't seem to fall under any of the categories in Wikipedia's "Problems that May Require Deletion" table. (See Wikipedia:Deletion policy.) The list in itself is a useful one, (I discovered it because I was searching for just such a list). The problem is that incorrect information has been added to the list, 50 Cent's song being the most blatant. Delete misleading entries and keep the list."

There you are, apparently the one person in the entire discussion who had read and understood the deletion policy. Looking at the list of "Problems that may require deletion", I have to agree: this article seemed to be very far from falling into any of those categories.