Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of artists who have recorded "Jingle Bells" (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The result was   speedy keep: withdrawn, no one else wants to delete. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

List of artists who have recorded "Jingle Bells"
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Please note the previous AfD discussion was closed as no consensus. Fails WP:WHIM, which reads, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; fails WP:NOTDIR; fails WP:SONGCOVER which reads, When a song has renditions (recorded or performed) by more than one artist, discussion of a particular artist's rendition should be included in the song's article (never in a separate article). There is no context in the article. With other 6000 recordings of the song, why is any song on/not on this selected list? I also note that WP:SIZE is not a valid argument for the main article to be split. I also note that the main article has been viewed 6417 times in the past month, while this page a mere 107 times. Richhoncho (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC) (categories)
 * Keep. Correctly kept last time. This is clearly not an indiscriminate collection of information - it is a list of recorded versions of a song by notable artists, and is properly sourced - many articles on less-recorded songs include details of known recorded versions by notable artists, this simply has more and has appropriately been separated from the article on the song. There is simply no evidence that there are over 6000 recordings of this song - this appears to be based on a figure at Allmusic, which counts many of the recordings multiple times as they appear on different compilations - scan through the results and you'll see the same recordings coming up over and over again. The number of times it has been viewed is irrelevant. Note also the plot by Richhoncho and Baseball Bugs to renominate this at a time of year when they felt it was most likely to get deleted which is, to say the least, cynical.--Michig (talk) 16:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 7.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  16:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Note also this 'reminder' to Baseball Bugs. --Michig (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, looks good enough. –BuickCenturyDriver 16:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article is well-sourced and has clear inclusion criteria: it only lists recordings by notable artists.   The number of page views is irrelevent.  The only argument in the nomination that seems to have any merit is WP:SONGCOVER.  But that is neither a policy nor a guideline, and according to this edit had the consensus of only two people (one of which being the AfD nominator).  At best, it's basically the equivelent of an unofficial manual of style which would allow for occassional exceptions.  Given the huge number of recordings of this song, this is clearly one of those exceptions.  In fact, the whole reason why this list was created was because the list in the main article was too long.  If we delete this article and merge its contents back into the original article, we're back to the original problem of having this lengthy list in the main article.  In short, there is no policy based reason to delete the article and merging the contents back into the original article solves nothing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator per WP:SNOWBALL. I note with regret that none of those advocating keeping can find any guideline to support them other than WP:OWNERSHIP and WP:ILIKEIT. Whereas the number of visitors to a page in itself is not relevant, it does illuminate that the average reader does not want to see who else has recorded the song other and above those already listed in the main article. Nor can I envision the main article being graded above it's present C rating until this list is trimmed and merged back into the main article. The sarcasm regarding WP:SONGCOVER is unwarranted because it is continuation of WP:SPLIT which reads, ''The two main reasons for splitting material out from an article, are size and content relevance. If either the whole article, or the specific material within one section becomes too large, or if the material is seen to be inappropriate for the article, then a split may be considered or proposed. Consideration must be given to size, notability and potential neutrality issues before proposing or carrying out a split.'' The main article could treble is size and still not be candidate for splitting and as the content for both articles are, put quite simply, Jingle Bells, there is no policy to split in the first place. Because of these points I cannot see this list surviving indefinately as a a standalone list. All that has happened is that deletion is delayed. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Per AQFK. A useful list, which also serves to keep the size of Jingle Bells down, as the information (or some sub-set of it) would inevitable be moved to that article, since that is where it came from. I see no legitimate policy-based rationale for deleting it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:14, 8 April 2012 (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.