Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mallu Magalhães 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 This list meets WP:LIST and WP:CLN guidelines as well as WP:GNG. There is room for improvement and unverifiable entries should be challenged on the talk page. Mike Cline (talk) 14:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

List of Mallu Magalhães songs

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

nothing but a song list, not even marked as a stub. Most songs not notable, if not deleted, would at least be better merged to discography, even then, doesn't seem needed at all Alan  -  talk  06:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - The list provisions are pretty liberal about what kind of lists get to stay; multiple redundant lists are seen as useful aids to navigation and help with sorting information in ways that aid users. "Nothing but a song list" is not a reason for deletion.  See WP:LISTPURP and WP:CLN. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per DustFormsWords. Poltair (talk) 09:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The article meets all the specifications of Wikipedia and is part of the life story of singer Mallu Magalhães the same.*Fr@nkl!nG* (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as this list has no verifiable definition in accordance with WP:Source list, without which it is just a collection of loosely assoicated of topics without any externally validated rationale for inclusion in Wikipedia. A verifable definition is also needed to demonstrate that it is not the product of original research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Hi Gavin.collins. WP:Source list doesn't make any reference to a "verifiable definition", although it does specifically say that "difficult or contentious subjects for which the definition of the topic itself is disputed should be discussed on the talk page" (ie solved through discussion, not AfD) but in any case verifiability only applies to contentious or challenged content.  Despite all of the above, the list starts with the words, "This is a chronological list of officially released songs by Brazilian Folk singer, songwriter and musician Mallu Magalhães," which clearly defines the scope and organisation of the list.  If there's dispute about whether any particular song falls under that heading it can be resolved through normal editing, not via AfD.  - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Every list has a definition, even if it is only the title. For a list to demonstrate it is not original research, it must provide a verifiable definition of what it is about, even if that definition is as broad or as vague as the title itself. In the context of songs by Mallu Magalhães, who has defined what is or is not a "officially released song"? If a reliable source can be found can provide an answer, then perhaps this list has a rationale for inclusion in Wikipedia, and can be saved from deletion. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Per WP:Source list, ambiguities in the scope of the list are to be discussed on the article's talk page, not solved through deletion. I wouldn't think there's much difficulty in determining what is and is not an "officially released song" but in as much as there's a difficulty it's something that can be solved by a better phrasing of the definition - it's not fundamentally unfixable.  A list of songs by a notable singer is a worthwhile list, and if you argue that either the singer isn't notable or the songs don't belong on the list that's not an argument to have through the forum of an AfD.  I feel you're confusing "things in this article that need improvement" with "reasons to delete this article", which aren't the same thing. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I think you will find that policy is quite clear that whether content comes in the form of a list article or standalone article, it needs to be verifiable by an external source. Wikipedia policy places a buden on every editor to provide details of where they have got their informtation from, and this applies to list articles as well as standalone articles. There is also a requirement to provide evidence that a list is not original research, by citing reliable sources that are directly related to the list. As stated earlier, every list has a definition, even if it is only the title. For a list to demonstrate it is not original research, it must provide a verifiable definition of what it is about, even if that definition is as broad or as vague as the title itself. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - That's not what WP:V says at all; content only requires sources where it's contentious or likely to be challenged. Further, the fact that an article contains unverifiable information isn't a reason to delete an article under any policy (except where the lack of such sources makes it fail WP:N) - it's a reason to work on fixing the article.  I've I think said all I can say on this here and at your talk page - and I have to say that other than as a matter of principle it's hard to care a lot about whether this particular list actually survives or not - so thank you for your politeness and your reference to policy and I look forward to working with you on other articles! - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  C T J F 8 3  chat 09:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep No compelling arguements for deletion, despite the continual relisting to try and force one.  Lugnuts  (talk) 10:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I rather take exception to Lugnuts' remark there. The "continual relisting to try and force one" is an overly-cynical, and unfair, characterisation of Wikipedia's administrators. Having said that, DustFormsWords' remark (above) seems to conclude the matter and I am not sure myself why it would be relisted twice.  DFW quite correctly points out that the individual elements of a list need not be notable, and that the list subject itself need not be notable provided that it serves a navigational function that's helpful to end-users (rather than being a promotional or marketing-type list). I don't agree with Gavin Collins at all.  It's not usually hard to tell whether a song's "officially released", and to claim we need an exact definition for that is simply pettifogging.  There may be cases where there's a legitimate dispute around one particular track, but that needs to be solved by interested editors on the list's talk page, rather than by unilateral deletion. All in all I think this discussion is over, all the necessary points have been made, and I would like to invite some passing admin to close it accordingly.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  11:03, 9 March 2010 (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.