Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Lindsay Lohan Remixes


 * 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 of the debate was no consensus, leaning to merge/redirect. - Mailer Diablo 08:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

List of Lindsay Lohan Remixes
An article on one of Lohan's songs is good enough. An individual article documenting the remixes of her songs is completely pointless. Remove it. &mdash;Hollow Wilerding. . . (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * merge/redirect to Lindsay Lohan and don't waste our time with another needless AFD. --Rob 19:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Another needless AfD? Laughable. If this one is needless, then every single other AfD is needless. If I believe that there is an article that is not required on Wikipedia, I will nominate it for deletion. &mdash;Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 19:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You didn't appreciate why I said it was needless. I didn't vote a simple keep, I voted merge/redirect.  You can place a redirect without an AFD.  If this was List of Jo Blough Remixes, an AFD would be warranted.  You could put in a redirect by youself, in under a minute.  Instead, you'll waste 5-days, and several peoples time.  Also, next time you do an AFD, be sure to put the text "AFD" in the edit summary, so watchers of the article are aware of what you've done.  Also, as deletion is not "minor" please don't mark the addition of the AFD tag as a "minor edit", as you did. --Rob 20:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I would rather list it here then start a possible edit war with several other users. A poll is better-suited than an argument. By the way, I will click the "minor edit" if I want to. Please don't start a silly argument with me here. &mdash;Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 20:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to use minor edit when you want, and not put in an edit description if you don't want. However, you'll find that others will assume all your edits to be major, and in need of review if you follow such a practice.  --Rob 20:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions.   -- Rob 20:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete/merge is certainly reasonable. This is not, and doesn't look like it even could be, an encyclopedia article.  I'm not sure I agree that the Afd is pointless tho.  It gives us the chance to come to the conclusion that this list should not be an entire article by itself.  I've no prejudice against some of the content being merged elsewhere, as appropriate.  Friday (talk) 20:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. BTW, depending how the Afd goes, it might make it harder to merge.  There seems to be a growing feeling that a prior Afd prevents merging after it's over.  I don't agree with this even a little bit, but many other editors apparently think that way.  Also, I'm not sure this is useful as a redirect, so even if merging is the main goal, the deletion question probably still needs to be resolved.  Friday (talk) 20:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete/merge/redirect I agree with Friday. WhiteNight T 20:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I though generally merge+delete (combined) is not an option, due to GFDL, which requies retention of edit history of old article, if its content are used in another article, in order to ensure attribution requirements are met.   --Rob 20:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Could be, I'm far from an expert on licensing issues. At any rate, there's no actual content here, so maybe it's not an issue in this case?  If the names of notable remixes get used elsewhere, who's to say that it came from this article and not from a CD jacket or somewhere else?  Friday (talk) 21:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * True, there isn't much content. So delete/redirect (no merge) would be legit.  --Rob 21:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, no merge or redirect. Article fails to establish the notability of any of these remixes or if they were officially commissioned by Lohan's record label, and there's currently no way to verify that these remixes exist at all. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. See also Articles for deletion/Remixography of Mariah Carey. Extraordinary Machine 22:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Extraordinary Machine nailed my opinion: Unless a remix is demonstrably known as well as (or better than) the original, its worthiness of any mention at all is dubious at best. I say, lose it completely. Radio  Kirk  ( talk to me ) 23:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete based on the Mariah Carey precedent. -- Mikeblas 17:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. I don't believe this belongs in the main article. I would also remind Mr. Kirk that vote tallies are frowned upon. -- JJay 21:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I see... Radio  Kirk   talk to me  21:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * ...because like in this case they are prone to error, POV based and designed to influence voting trends. They often lead to bold predictions or statements of fact not grounded in reality. They can mislead or intimidate. In short, they are disruptive and do not facilitate reaching consensus. -- JJay 21:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, to be honest, I find that something of an overreaction. There was no running tally; rather, I intentionally waited until there was a significant period of inactivity before noting the tally. If you wish to see that as "disruptive", well, that's your prerogative; I happen to disagree. Radio  Kirk   talk to me  22:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was this unexplained edit, which was diruptive.  The closing admin can count, and won't need your tally assistance. --Rob 22:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine. Radio  Kirk   talk to me  22:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC).

After nearly two days of nonactivity, the vote (including multiple options) stands at 6 for deletion, 3 for merging, 2 for redirection. Radio Kirk   talk to me  17:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * merge/redirect to Lindsay Lohan. I agree. having this separate list is confusing. Atrian 03:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Information is verifiable, and would only crowd the main Lindsay Lohan. This is exactly the sort of thing that usually warrants a page of its own when the main page gets too big. Lists of things in particular are good candidates from splitting off from other pages. Turnstep 17:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You don't feel that a list of this type is an indiscriminate collection of information? It sure doesn't look like an encyclopedia article to me. Friday (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Not at all, this is not a random collection of data, this is a tightly focused list. It certainly does not fall into any of the eight examples on the aforementioned page. Turnstep 18:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge or redirect to Lindsay Lohan article. --Terence Ong Talk 13:14, 5 January 2006 (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.