Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of albums with particularly long titles (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 DELETE. Rje 00:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

List of albums with particularly long titles
This Nintendude-esque list is an idiosyncratic non-topic. It can't possibly illustrate any articles (is anyone going to write long album titles?), it invites the addition of non-notable songs/albums/bands, and there's no trend that this article illustrates or could possibly illustrate. It's transient, the length of albums is not a significant subject of study, and the criteria cannot help but be entirely arbitrary.

This was previously on AFD, with a result of no consensus with a majority to delete. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, policy cites. This is indiscriminate trivia, and an idosyncratic non-topic, both of which are called out as specifically inappropriate for Wikipedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * KeepWikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. :) Dlohcierekim 04:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. How are you going to define the criteria for "particularly long titles"?  Lazybum 04:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * it is specified as titles longer than 10 words (which seems a bit short perhaps) Spearhead 20:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete gateway for non-notable MySpace bands to make themselves notable enough for Wikipedia. -AED 04:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OR. Personally I think 3 is particularly long and should be included. (In other words it is not specified what particularly long is and neither can it be.) -- Koffieyahoo 04:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 05:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This is inherently subjective arbitrary and trivial. — TKD::Talk 05:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Criteria not specified and subjective? The article specifically says it's for titles of ten or more words...  NickelShoe (Talk) 05:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think Koffieyahoo's comment is misworded; it's not that there are no criteria, it's that the criteria are inherently meaningless and arbitrary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yup, that might be a better way to say it. -- Koffieyahoo 05:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "Subjective" was a bad word choice on my part also. I meant "subjective" in that equating 10 words as "particularly long" is subjective. It could technically be renamed it to refklect the criterion, but the important criticisms — that it's trivial and indiscriminate — would remain. — TKD::Talk 05:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: the length set to ten may be somewhat arbitrary, however looking at the length of the itself, as well as my own CD collection, it isn't as arbitrary as it seems. Most albums have relatively short titles of usually less than a couple of words. Therefore this list makes it an interesting list of exceptions Spearhead 19:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete It's not content about albums, but about album titles, and specificially album title length, making it inherently trivial, not encyclopaedic. GassyGuy 07:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete not encyclopedic, not objective - how long is "paticuarly long" anyway? Viridae Talk
 * Delete, unencyclopedic and unmaintainable. RandyWang ( raves/review me! ) 08:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, this could be interesting to someone. J I P  | Talk 09:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete spectacularly unencyclopaedic. If it somehoe survives AfD, I recommend changing its name to List of albums with titles containign more than ten words or similar so the title reflects the subject matter Lurker talk 10:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT as well as because this list is wholly based on arbitrary criteria. Who decided 10 words is "particularly long" when it comes to album titles? Why not 6, 8, or 13?--Isotope23 13:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is entirely unencyclopaedic.  It's also very subjective - people have different opinions about what constitutes a long album title.  If this article is renamed to List of albums with titles containing more than ten words, we'll doubtless have lists of albums with titles less than ten words long, lists of titles of albums containing a certain number, lists of song titles with more than 10 words, and so on.  My point is, do we really need all of that?  It's completely unencyclopaedic and subjective in the first place, and the lists it's sure to spawn will become unmaintainable.  I also don't think an album becomes notable simply because its title is long.  Additionally, I doubt anyone will come to Wikipedia to search for a list of albums with titles containing ten or more words.  Srose  (talk)  15:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * keep; this one: List of songs with particularly long titles was kept through an AFD; so I don't see why the albums version should be deleted. Spearhead 20:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Looking at that page, I see that the result of the debate was "no consensus". -- Koffieyahoo 05:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Spearhead's reasoning. If we don't delete one, that sets a precedent for the other.--Thorne N. Melcher 01:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not according to this policy it doesn't. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should closely examine the AFD for the other article. Precedents can easily be overturned, but the discussion contained in that AFD is most certainly pertinent to the decision before us with this article. Thorne N. Melcher 08:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Fantastic idea! Let's look at the reasoning in that AFD: "I think this is notable" (with no explanation why and the nom didn't mention notability), "interesting," "useful and encyclopedic" (with no explanation of what it's useful for), "informative and we have sillier lists," no reasoning at all, "this helped me with research" (with no explanation what on Earth he was researching; I can't see this random selection of titles being useful for any sort of research project). This may be interesting, but it doesn't address the fact that it's a list of indiscriminate trivia and an idiosyncratic non-topic, both of which are longstanding reasons not to have a random list of factoids on Wikipedia. If it's interesting, put it on your personal site. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Does not violate any policy: (i) WP:NOT does not mention trivia; (ii) list inclusion requirements are specific and highly discriminate - this article is not anywhere close to the defined clauses of WP:NOT indiscriminate collection of information. Those clauses are specific, not elastic. They can not encompass any topic that a given nominator finds objectionable on a given day; (iii) calling this an "idosyncratic non-topic" is a matter of opinion. It is belied by the long-standing interest in album/song names throughout pop music history, evidenced by the work of Nick Hornby. This list examines an aspect of naming conventions in the field of recorded music. As such, it fully deserves continued inclusion at wikipedia, as previously validated in non-binding deletion discussions --JJay 13:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there long-standing interest in the subject of song name length? Would it ever be possible to write an article about song name length? (WP:NOT mentions indiscriminate collections of information, and it is being argued that the criteria for this list are meaninglessly arbitrary.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I discuss WP:NOT in my original comment, but I would encourage you to review the indiscriminate collection of information section. There is no mention of "arbitrary" in WP:Not. The "indiscriminate" section of WP:NOT applies to seven types of articles; this is not one of them.  There is also very long-standing interest in song titles (of which this clearly examines an aspect) and it should be eminently possible to write a more developed overview of the topic, perhaps as an introduction to the list. A possible starting point might be Charles Lindsay's 1928 article, The Nomenclature of the Popular song . --JJay 14:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment IMO, all of these arbitrarily defined lists violate WP:NOR as well. The idea that a list with "10 words in the title" is originial research on the part of the editor(s) who added this "criteria" as they have essentially used Wikipedia to corrolate or define "particularly long titles" with "10 Words".  Unless one can provide some sort of external WP:V sourcing showing there is ample reason to believe that 10 words is a generally accepted cutoff where a song title becomes long.  Otherwise, Wikipedia is simply allowing contributors to create lists based on their own personal, unverified criteria.--Isotope23 11:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You evaded my question, speaking instead of the topic of song titles, not song title length. Are you arguing that someone could write an article on Wikipedia about the length of song titles? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The length is an aspect of the song title. I have no doubt that someone has written on the topic (like with the duration of songs). --JJay 04:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Then let's delete this on sight as original research, then, when you find some reliable sources that discuss the subject of song title length, you can make an article based on those sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, OR is not a CSD criteria (not that I consider this to be OR). Please await the conclusion of this review before deleting the list. --JJay 12:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was quoting OR, not proposing speedy deletion but it seems that it's been changed as misleading. In any event, mentioning the study of song titles seems to be dickering; this list is still arbitrarily defined, impossible to complete and thus not authoritative (making it useless for research), an idiosyncratic non-topic, and just plain not suited to Wikipedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for restating the opinions expressed in your nom. If you are interested in reviewing my opinion, see my earlier comments. --JJay 13:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You never answered my question. Are you arguing that you could write an actual article for Song title length? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm writing an essay on list articles of this nature in my user space, feel free to have a look (though its not quite finished yet) and comment Lurker  talk 14:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - I see articles of this nature all the time... List of films that most frequently use the word fuck, list of bands with colors in the title, list of songs with more than one music video... the list goes on. Maybe you should attack those next. Calicore 22:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Yes, we should start attacking those crufty articles.  Lazybum 04:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete trivial (if this is kept, at least drop the "particularly") ˉˉanetode╦╩ 19:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete indiscriminate list with arbitrarily selected criteria for inclusion (why ten words ? who says that's "particularly long" ?) Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:18, 7 August 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.