Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boardwalk Hall Auditorium Organ stoplist


 * 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. SarahStierch (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Boardwalk Hall Auditorium Organ stoplist

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article content is entirely too trivial and unencyclopedic. – Dream out loud (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Other than this apparently having something to do with how the Boardwalk Hall Auditorium Organ operates, I have no idea what this list is even presenting so I can't really evaluate it. Can you explain, and then be a bit more specific about why this information is trivial or encyclopedic and why or why not the summary table in the parent article is sufficient? postdlf (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * To whom is your above message directed? The author of the list article?  He's not an active editor (hasn't made an edit in almost a month) so I don't expect him to even notice this AfD.  – Dream out loud  (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * (NB: Even if I'm not active, a notice on my user space is surely only polite. I only found out because a template used on the page was listed for deletion. Tom pw (talk) (review) 00:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC) )
 * To you, the nominator. postdlf (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I said the list is unencyclopedic. As Themfromspace noted below, it's trivial because it's merely an indiscriminate collection of information, as per WP:IINFO.  I think the summary table in parent article is sufficient enough; no need to have this article as well. – Dream out loud  (talk) 22:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:IINFO. The information presented is purely trivial.  To Postdlf: This list is an enumeration of each of the sets of pipes on a very large organ. See Organ stop.  Them  From  Space  21:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I wish there were a use for this information that would make it worth retaining but the fantastic amount of microscopic detail here makes it hard to justify keeping this as an article or merging it elsewhere. The level of detail in the Boardwalk Hall Auditorium Organ article seems appropriate and encyclopedic. Alansohn (talk) 19:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Certainly this information is very technical and of interest to a limited audience, but so are many topics on Wikipedia. The list of stops is highly relevant to the article about the instrument, but in this case too large to include in the article itself, I believe. --Danmuz (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep "The fantastic amount of microscopic detail" can't seriously be a reason to delete something. If we applied that logic, then we wouldn't have any articles with details! Much of this information used to be in Boardwalk Hall Auditorium Organ (as per this old version). It got split into a separate article, because it meant some additional information could be added, and it could sensibly be presented in a sortable fashion. The article requires some work - in particular it needs a better lead so it can function as a standalone article, and generally add context for the casual reader. To Themfromspace: You say "This list is an enumeration of each of the sets of pipes on a very large organ". Any list is an enumeration, by definition! Your comment is like saying that List of United States Senators from Maine is an enumeration of each of the senators from a small state - it's true, but I fail to see why it's a reason for deletion. Further, this isn't just "a very large organ" - it's the largest pipe organ ever built. That makes the information non-trivial. Tom pw (talk) (review) 00:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * First, the entire article seems to be 100% original research. I don't know where you could find reliable sources for every single one of the organ pipes.  Second, the article does not seem to satisfy the requirements at MOS:LIST.  The list does not fit into any categories at MOS:LIST.  Third, Wikipedia is not a list of indiscriminate information and details on every single pipe in the world's largest organ simply are not notable. – Dream out loud  (talk) 03:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Firstly, it's not original research. It lacked references, but that's a separate issue... I've added some). Secondly, that list of categories for lists doesn't cover everything allowed - hence why it says "Types of list articles include" not "Types of allowed list articles are" (emphasis mine). There are other lists that don't fit in any of these categories (e.g. Railway stations in Armenia - the links on the page are to cities, not articles on the stations, so it's not an index list). Thirdly, it doesn't detail "every single pipe". It lists key information about every *set* of pipes. Tom pw (talk) (review) 19:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Bother... forgot to add: (1) what specific requirements at MOS:LIST do feel this article fails to satisfy; and (2) are you certain these failures cannot be fixed? (If they can be fixed, I'm sure we all agree we should fix things rather than delete the article). Tom pw (talk) (review) 19:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I really don't think this article can be "fixed". If that were the case, I wouldn't have nominated it for an AfD.  The problem is that the content itself is not notable.  In List of United States Senators from Maine, each senator on the list is notable themselves and has his/her own article.  Looking at this article, you can't pick out any individual organ stop from the list and write an article about it.  As a whole, yes, the stops are notable, but that content should be reserved for the organ's main article.  If you look at MOS:LIST, you'll see that this list does not fit in the category of any of the eight types of lists. – Dream out loud  (talk) 01:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So, to be clear, the only part of MOS:LIST you feel this article fails is that it doesn't fit in those categories? If so, then I would repeat that those categories are not exhaustive. Plenty of lists exist that do not fit in those categories. Are for notability... You agree that's its notable as a whole, although the items on the list aren't (and no-one's claiming they are). So you seem to be arguing that something notable shouldn't have its own article. Tom pw (talk) (review) 16:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * When I said "This list is an enumeration..." I was explaining to Postdlf what the list is about, as he seemed confused on the subject matter. That wasn't my argument for deletion. My argument is that encyclopedias do not list out items in this degree of detail.  Just as there is no listing of every room in the Empire State Building, although the building itself is notable, we should not list every stop on a giant organ. If any particular sets of stops are notable, they can be described in the main organ's article, but the level of factual detail is too much for an encyclopedia article.  Them  From  Space  16:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Keep This article is pretty notable. It doesn't seem to bother me whether if you guys decide to keep or delete it. I would not have a problem with either option. Ashbeckjonathan 02:07, 10 June 2013 (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.