Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of box set albums (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 DELETED. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

List of box set albums
Unmaintainable listcrust, better served as a category. This has been nominated before, and the reult then was a delete. J Milburn 00:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Sorry, forgot to link to this- Articles for deletion/List of box set albums. J Milburn 00:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete Serves no useful purpose from what I can see. Ohconfucius 05:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep please read WP:LISTs if you don't understand the point of lists. Categories are not the same as lists.  Since Box set has an article, List of box sets cannot reasonably be argued to be listcruft.  Essentially, nominator has advanced no rational for deletion, nor can I see any.  No policy, guideline or proposal even suggests we should delete useful, encyclopaedic content, so I have to suggest we keep it. WilyD 13:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Yes, there are times when lists are more helpful than categories, but this isn't one of them. If you are simply looking for examples of box sets, the category is fine. If you are looking for box sets by a specific artist, this list would not be as helpful as, say, the artist's discography either here or elsewhere. It is very unlikely that somebody looking to fill in gaps in albums would choose to do so by filling in missing box sets as opposed to, say, missing albums from a particular artist or time period. Also, please note that there is very little tying these sets together except that they are multiple discs packaged as box sets. This list does not help to explicate anything about box sets, nor could it. That is why it is not, in my opinion, "useful, encyclopaedic content." GassyGuy 18:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * In essence, though, what you're arguing here is that this is a stub quality list, and that merely being a stub is a criterion for deletion. It isn't. If you look at Featured lists you'll see plenty of lists that meet all of the quantitative complaints you've voiced here, yet been elevated to featured status simply because they're better developed. WilyD 19:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Please do not attempt to tell me what my argument is. My argument is not that this is a stub - my argument is that it serves no purpose that the category does not serve, and that not only does it not help to explicate on the concept of box sets (which, if it did, would give it some merit as an article), but that it could never help to explicate that concept. That is my argument. GassyGuy 22:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing to do with it being a stub for me. It's just a list that is simply too broad and unmaintainable. It's like doing a List of record albums. 23skidoo 01:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Your whole argument is that the article is hard to write, so we shouldn't bother? WilyD 14:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Listcruft. Zaxem 11:20, 3 September 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.