Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geffen Records discography (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus. For deletion: WP:WAX, WP:PERNOM. For keeping: WP:WAX, WP:USEFUL. This discussion was pretty weakly argued, so there is no consensus. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 18:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Geffen Records discography
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Another in a long line of discographies for deletion. If it was possible to complete this article, the result would be a long, useless list.  Bsay @ CSU  [ π ] 20:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per precedent of other similar discographies by label. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. There is no clear precedent (Atlantic Records discography was kept, twice) and Geffen Records has a clear, well-defined set of releases. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a speedy keep by any means. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * More important, no precedent by any means. One of the least civil aspects of Wikipedia is the way some combatants in AFD and other areas engage in content-free needling of editors they disagree with rather than engaging in civil, policy-based discussions. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record My nomination does not assume any precedents. The reasoning is simply based on the same reasoning for which other discography articles were nominated.  -- Bsay @ CSU  [ π ]  00:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But, so far as I can tell, only the Sony BMG discocraphy was deleted, due to general unwieldiness and the fact that it involved the conglomeration of multiple major labels. Geffen records doesn't present those issues. Could you elaborate? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The other articles have not been deleted because their AfDs have not closed. These articles (whether many labels, or just one) have no chance of being a reasonably complete article, and even if it was completed, it would be an unwieldy, long, useless, list.  Look at the other nominations for any information beyond that.  -- Bsay @ CSU  [ π ]  16:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. POKERdance talk/ contribs 22:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. We should aim to complete this list - perhaps it would be long (it could be split), but it would not be useless - it would be useful encyclopedic information.--Michig (talk) 08:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * CommentSony BMG closed 'Delete' with no rationale Atlantic Records 3rd nomination "Speedy close and let RFD run course.". WP:CCC and WP:FORUMSHOP should be on the same side. Activity like this pits them against each other in a duel to the death. Anarchangel (talk) 00:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The fact that the list can never be completed (which assumes that Geffen Records) will never close up shop) does not mean that it should be deleted. There are plenty of lists that won't be completed in the near future. One example is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States. Sincerely, --Pink Bull (talk) 23:29, 13 August 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.