Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Rock Band track packs


 * 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) 14:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

List of Rock Band track packs

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Per WP:DIRECTORY, this article doesn't fit into the scope of Wikipedia. ArcAngel (talk) 01:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Reception information exists for all of these; absolutely not a directory. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:59, 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. Moreso, each of these are individual products, and thus can be considered individual games under the series - just not enough info to warrant a separate page for each. --M ASEM  (t) 02:19, 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.  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) 08:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:57, 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) 16:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:SNOW. A list of games released on multi-platforms and each of which has separate reviews and production history is hardly a mere directory.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 02:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as the notability of this data is not clear. The sources cited in the article (16 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) 11:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the synthesis comment. Using multiple sources does not violate WP:SYNTH and I am not seeing the sources synthesized in an inapprorpiate manner. Rlendog (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I found the article useful. If it passes the useful test I think it should be kept —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adhanali (talk • contribs) 12:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per my arguements here. At this point, consider my argument applicable to ANY RB related article that has been tagged for deletion under series of AfD's. It's tiring copy/pasting comments and it's causing me to lose track of which arguments have been made where. -- TRTX T / C 17:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: This was useful to me, as I wanted to know if a particular song was out for rockband and I just searched for it and foudn this page.  Sources are good and accurate.Divedeeper  10:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: - This was an exceptionally useful article to me, and that is the entire point of an encyclopaedia. Let's not get caught up in technicalities - it is useful, it is factual. -- D a n c r a g g s 16:59, 17 September 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.