Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series


 * 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 keep per the snowball clause. MuZemike 22:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

2009 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

WP:DIRECTORY seems to apply here. Listcruft could also apply, as well as WP:NOTGUIDE. In any event, this is something not suited for Wikipedia but for a game guide site. ArcAngel (talk) 01:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is acting as an encyclopedic reference with regard to the Rock Band video game. It's encyclopedic value is not diminished merely because the entry is about a video game. This game has had become a part of our culture and could easily be the subject of any number of studies, from psychology to sociology, and this Wikipedia entry is a useful reference with regard to its content. --[[User:Apollo2Kappa] 09:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Songs from both the Guitar Hero and Rock Band series have been noted to gain attention after their inclusion in these games (see Cultural impact of the Guitar Hero series). Tracking these songs per this reason is not a directory issue even if the information is available elsewhere. --M ASEM  (t) 02:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Numerous precedent exists for articles of this type, see Category:Music video game soundtracks.  This information is notable, encyclopedic, and well-referenced. Song lists for music games are equally notable to a track listing on a musical album article.  The idea that these lists are cruft is equally absurd, as reliable sources such as OXM and IGN review the releases nearly every week.  Oren0 (talk) 02:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Many people tend to find a list of songs for games like these to gather information on the game. These pages provide an organized layout for the very numerous songs released for this game. And it most certainly meets Notability.-- 猛禽22 •• 02:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per Oren0. Maxamegalon2000 04:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: per Oren0. Well sourced and commonplace. Metty 04:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep this is the best source of information and most comprehensive list i can find. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.8.238.125 (talk) 07:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: per Oren0. This is no different than a track listing for an album, the listing is part of why the game is notable, and having a separate article allows not having a giant table in the main article. None of the categories under WP:NOTDIRECTORY apply to this article, and it tells what the game content is, not how to finish the game (as a guide would). PaulGS (talk) 08:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The list is not a directory, nor cruft, nor a guide, bt a perfectly valid list, and thus none of the reasons provided for deletion in the nomination are valid. Rlendog (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per comments on similar AFD. --Taelus (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete All these songs can and should be listed in the similar articles for each Rock Band Game.  TJ   Spyke   20:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * These songs work across multiple games, so there's no one single game to put them under. --M ASEM (t) 20:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So? When a song is included on multiple albums (like compilation albums), we list it on each of those pages.  TJ   Spyke   21:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * When there's 10-40 tracks per album, sure. This list is close to 800 songs and counting. Duplicating (triplicating and so on if Lego Rock Band and future Rock Band titles follow the same route) that much information is completely unnecessary and inefficient, and makes WP:SIZE whimper at the end result of such inclusion. This is the most compact form that makes this information usable to the general reader for academic purposes. --M ASEM (t) 22:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per my statements here. I would encourage any further discussion to continue in the "main" AfD for the all encompassing table. -- TRTX T / C 14:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per WP:SNOW and WP:ITSCRUFT. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 02:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither of those essays justify a speedy keep; I invite you to amend your !vote. Stifle (talk) 13:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as the notability of this data is not clear. The sources cited in the article (20 at the last count) are from Questionable sources, namely fansite forums, or they merely reguritate press releases. Since here is no significant coverage from sources which are both reliable and independent, this article reads like a product guide rather than an encylopedic article. This article might make a useful FAQ on a fansite, but this syntheis of sources is not appropriate for Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * These contents can be sourced through reliable, sources, i.e. published magazines, and as such is beyond appropriate for the paperless encyclopedia anyone can edit. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 13:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And I don't understand the synthesis comment. Using multiple sources does not violate WP:SYNTH and I am not seeing the sources synthesized in an inapprorpiate manner. Rlendog (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep None of the reasons listed for deletion are valid. "Listcruft" is never a valid reason for deletion, and the list is not simply a "directory" such as a phone book, etc. Notability by itself is also never a reason for deletion, but even if it were the notability of the overall topic (ie the complete discography of Rock Band) is what would be relevant to a notability discussion, since this is a subarticle of that.  All the items in the article are well sourced and the article appears to be frequently, regularly maintained.  Finally note that the article is well trafficked and used by a large sector of readers as a valuable reference.  Therefore Keep. Dugwiki (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Entirely encyclopedic material that is large enough to merit splitting off from the parent article, not to mention well-presented and verified. Chubbles (talk) 20:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.