Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ace of Base songs


 * 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. Nja 247 10:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Ace of Base songs

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Both not notable, unsourced (particularly the "unreleased songs" article), repeated info already found in Ace of Base discography. Fails WP:NOT at the very least. eo (talk) 23:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  — Cliff smith  talk  16:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  — Cliff smith  talk  16:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per WP:AOAL, WP:LISTPURP. I'm sorry but I'm not following. How does it fail WP:NOT and how is it in any way different from List of The Beatles songs, List of Elvis Presley songs, List of Radiohead songs, List of unreleased ABBA songs or thousands of other similar lists present on Wikipedia? Right now I see nothing an template can't fix. — Rankiri (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't think the number of notable songs recorded by Ace of Base comes anywhere close to the total recorded by the artists you named. The Beatles and Presley in particular have zillions of people combing over every facet of every recording session they ever did, collecting every outtake, etc., so putting their songs in a list definitely helps for navigational purposes.  The ABBA list is also fully sourced and this one is not. - eo (talk) 00:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My objection was that individual list entries don't have to be notable and the list itself doesn't seem to violate any policies (edit: with the possible exception of WP:V). I agree that these ~101 songs could probably be merged with Ace of Base discography (27KB) but I don't believe that such merging proposals—as well as initial requests for sources—should be brought to AfD. — Rankiri (talk) 00:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash;Sean Whitton / 13:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think this discussion should include Ace of Base demos, b-sides, unreleased songs. — Rankiri (talk) 00:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge into Ace of Base discography or the main Ace of Base article. 69.253.207.9 (talk) 06:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge all - unneeded lists into one - either Ace of Base discography or List of Ace of Base songs. Bearian (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait - I think Rankiri brings up a good point--that all of these subsidiary articles need to be merged if this one does. As for the general article, if generic song listings outside of discographies are OK (not sure) then this should be kept; otherwise, then merge it. Shadowjams (talk) 08:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - Changing to weak keep because I don't think there's any real problem with secondary song lists if the underlying artist is notable, and has more than a few albums under their belt. Maybe the Music Project should (or does) have some standard on this: something like, 5 or more albums, the majority of which were notable releases. Something like that. Who knows, but this works. Shadowjams (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep per Rankiri--notable band, and discographies and song lists are often kept separate. Precedent favors keeping this. Jclemens (talk) 18:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The lists satisfy all Wikipedia requirements. While merging with discography may have some merit, as Jclemens notes, discographies and song lists are often kept separate, which makes sense because non-single songs aren't really "discs". Rlendog (talk) 20:33, 6 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.