Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Complete list of 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. WP:SNOW applies. Stifle (talk) 13:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Complete list of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This list fulfills the criteria of WP:DIRECTORY and indeed is something that can be found elsewhere. ArcAngel (talk) 01:50, 14 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) 02:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also please note that the same person has nominated the three other lists that are used in transclusion for the content of this one. These are:
 * Articles for deletion/2007 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series
 * Articles for deletion/2008 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series
 * Articles for deletion/2009 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series
 * --M ASEM (t) 02:21, 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) 02:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: per Oren0. Well sourced and commonplace. Metty 04:46, 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) 14:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per comments on similar AFD. --Taelus (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - This list is not a WP:DIRECTORY and thus there is no valid reason given to delete it. Rlendog (talk) 16:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Agree with the "soundtrack list" idea, and I would like to note that it contributes useful information because of the way all the song/artist articles are linked (other versions of this list found elsewhere do not contribute this sort of cross-referencing) --Evilspoons (talk) 17:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Oren0...and per the cardinal Wikisin of WP:ITSUSEFUL. Not a valid keep reason...but...I go back to this article frequently, mainly because it is very well maintained and well referenced. --Smashvilletalk 21:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per above arguments. Zeldafanjtl (talk) 03:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per other arguments. this website has alone has kept me coming back and has over the last couple of years its been out has solidified wikipedia for me as a primary place to find incormation. Because of this I use Wikipedia much much more often then I would otherwise. I think that speaks for many, many other people who are such big fans of the series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.244.36 (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per argument made by users Oren and Masem. This is no different than a video game or film soundtrack, with the only "differences" stemming from the documented fact that the content isn't tied to any one specific game, but rather 3.  With respect to WP:SIZE, the editors have worked out the best solution possible to present this content in an encyclepdic fashion while also ensuring that it's application to multiple titles is well documented.  Let it also be noted that my statements in favor of keeping this article apply to all four AfDs that have been created for these articles. -- TRTX T / C 14:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, again, per WP:SNOW, and also as subject is covered in reliable sources: “Rock Band’s Five Most Unexpectedly Rockin’ Downloadable Song,” PlayStation: The Official Magazine (January 2009): 58; “Rock Band’s Five Most Disappointingly Boring Downloadable Song,” PlayStation: The Official Magazine (January 2009): 58 among MANY others. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 02:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as the notability of this data is not clear. The sources cited in the article (23 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) 11:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * These contents can unequivically 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 13:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Compiling multiple sources with data into a larger data set without modification of that data is not synthesis, or least, its not the type of synthesis that is considered original research. As for notability, these are supporting articles from the main game pages (the song lists are too large to include there) but even then, there are additional sources that comment on the release of these songs each week. These *could* be added, but then this reduces the usability of these articles. And there's general sources that apply to the overall body of song content that are already included in the main articles. --M ASEM  (t) 14:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Its a cummulative synthesis of the articles you listed in your earlier post of September 14th (see above). In fact, this article duplicates them. Perhaps a merger might be appropriate. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason there exists this article and the 3 other ones is that about 2 months ago, we decided to split the single large article into by-year lists due to size concerns on a 700+ entry table, thus allowing the by-year lists to be more manageable for those that may not have expected the larger size. However, at the same time, the full list is sortable, and thus this one is retained to allow full list sorting (and it so noted to be "full" or "complete" when linked to elsewhere). Transclusion is used to avoid duplication of the backend wikicode used to generate the table; this full list transcludes the necessary sections of the by-year lists.  Such breakouts are completely appropriate for large lists and to meet size constraints (there are several that break out by alpha, some by year).  This is not synthesis in any way. --M ASEM  (t) 15:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The fact information can be found elsewhere is never a reason to delete Wikipedia articles. To the contrary, Wikipedia requires that information be gathered from reliable sources, so if the information weren't available elsewhere then it would have to be deleted as being unsourced. As to the complaint of it being a "directory", the complaint is invalid as the list is not simply a directory of names but is more akin to a discography or soundtrack listing for a work or artist.  The only reason it is maintained as a separate article is because of the size of the list in question.  Finally note that all the information is well sourced and reliably maintained on a regular schedule by editors and is an integral part of the main topic in question (ie Rock Band), which contradicts any complaints about maintainability or notability of the topic. Dugwiki (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The article does not fulfill the directory criteria. The directory policy explicitly states, "Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference." That exactly describes the article in question. --Eve Teschlemacher (talk) 22:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per everyone else's argument, but also: these lists are useful. Or does that even matter anymore? I've been out of the Wikiloop for a while. 71.166.47.127 (talk) 02:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)f
 * 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.