Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classic 100 Swoon (ABC)


 * 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Classic 100 Swoon (ABC)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Inherently unencyclopedic list. Promotional. Fails GNG. Speedy declined on the grounds that it is part of event series where every other one has a page, but even if hypothetically the other lists (or the series as a whole) are notable, notability is not transitive: this list is not notable. —teb728 t c 08:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per the previous discussion about these lists. Graham 87 08:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That AfD is of little relevance here. A majority of the discussion there was on copyright, which is not at issue here (assuming the ABC free licenses their list).
 * The AfD nomination there (as here) cites non-notability but the discussion (both for and against) lacks understanding of the Wikipedia concept of notability, arguing that the ABC list is not important or is interesting to readers. But Wikipedia defines notability not in terms of importance or interest but in terms of significant coverage in secondary reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
 * The last post at that AfD cites relevant sources, but they apply to that list not this. Perhaps someday this list will have sources to make it notable, but it is WP:TOOSOON
 * This AfD raises an issue not in that nomination: This article is unencyclopedic because rather than being a collection of information about the ABC list, it is essentially a copy of the ABC list. —teb728 t c 21:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This AfD raises an issue not in that nomination: This article is unencyclopedic because rather than being a collection of information about the ABC list, it is essentially a copy of the ABC list. —teb728 t c 21:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree notability is not inherited, but in what way is this promotional? Also, for all the same reasons in the AfD quoted above. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the word “promotional” is unfortunate: I don’t mean to say the Wikipedia article is promotional but rather that the ABC list it is copied from is intended to raise ratings.
 * I don’t know about other keep-!voters, but surely you know what significant coverage in independent reliable sources is: I invite you to change your !vote. —teb728 t c 21:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep – There have been lengthy discussions about other events in this series, resulting in "Keep". There's no need or reason to do that again. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete As not notable. No evidence of significant coverage in third-party sources. There's also no evidence of notability for some other entries in the series, e.g. Classic 100 Baroque and Before (ABC), so WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments won't work. The original top 100 did get some press coverage, but even then most of the keep arguments in that AfD were dubious or non-policy-based: "so marginal that they hardly seem worth the debate", "no less notable than The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show" (untrue: see the amount of references on that article), etc. Colapeninsula (talk) 10:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep This is the 2015 edition of an annual, long-running, and well known public music poll. Granted, it's not as famous as the Triple J Hottest 100 competitions (after which the classic 100 are based) because classical music isn't as popular as pop music. But I don't see how you can call it an "Inherently unencyclopedic list" (my emphasis) as the nominator says, given how many other equivalent competitions are covered in Category:Music competitions in Australia. [for the benefit of non-australians: Classic FM and Triple J are sister radio-stations of the national public broadcaster, the ABC]. Wittylama 11:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Good question: I say it is “inherently unencyclopedic” because rather than being a collection of information about the ABC list, it is essentially a copy of the ABC list. See WP:NOTMIRROR for analogous examples of unencyclopedic content. —teb728 t c 21:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, as per above. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  12:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: For what it's worth, this debate happens [almost] every single year - and every single time, 8 in total - the deletion debate gets closed as "Keep". A good summary of all the prevoius arguments used, and re-hashed each time, can be derived from them! See the overarching article's deletion debate here Articles for deletion/Classic 100 Countdowns (ABC), and the annual competition articles' deletion debates here: Articles for deletion/Classic 100 piano (ABC); Articles for deletion/Classic 100 opera (ABC); Articles for deletion/Classic 100 Mozart (ABC); Articles for deletion/Classic 100 concerto (ABC); Articles for deletion/Classic 100 chamber (ABC); Articles for deletion/Classic 100 Symphony (ABC); Articles for deletion/Classic 100 Ten Years On (ABC). Wittylama 12:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If you read the AfDs, you'll see that the early polls were kept because they received independent media coverage and met WP:GNG. But in many of the discussions, there was little or no attempt to reference Wikipedia policy: people just said "Keep because it's always been kept". That's not a valid reason to keep a topic which fails WP:GNG, and because a bad decision was made in the past we don't have to keep making bad decisions. The keep decisions in Articles_for_deletion/Classic_100_Mozart_(ABC) and Classic 100 Ten Years On (ABC) were astonishingly poor, with nobody at all advancing anything that resembled actual policy-based reasons. If you can find a policy-based reason to keep this article, say so. Colapeninsula (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep The lists in these articles constitute a valuable encyclopaedic resource about music preferences, becoming more valuable as time passes and the change or stability in those preferences is revealed. The popularity of the pieces is demonstrated as being far more enduring than any "pop" pieces. The music choices themselves, and their composers, are all notable and linked to well-developed important articles. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 04:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Perhaps some people think that because the 87th Academy Awards (for example) has an article, all lists of winners should have articles, but that is not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia has articles only for topics which are “notable,” where notable topics are defined as those that have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. So in the case of this year’s Oscars, notice that 87th Academy Awards has a long list of sources, most of them independent of the Academy. Notice also that the list of nominees and winners is a minority of the article. —teb728 t c 20:19, 12 June 2015 (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.