Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of compositions by Franz Liszt (S.1 - S.350)


 * 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-- JForget 01:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

List of compositions by Franz Liszt (S.1 - S.350)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article fails WP:NOT#DIR. Per policy it should be deleted. Rememeber Wikipedia is not a list. :) Thanks !    KoshVorlon  ".. We are ALL Kosh..."  19:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Just by being a list doesn't mean it "fails WP:NOT".   Perhaps the nom should become acquainted with WP:LISTS, not to mention the text of WP:NOT#DIR that clearly states lists are permitted per policy.  Franz Liszt (no pun intended) was one of the most prolific and popular composers of the Romantic era and certainly a list of his compositions, which are far too great in number to be included in the Franz Liszt main article, is both 100% encyclopedic and verifiable. --Oakshade 05:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm less than certain about what procedure I'm supposed to use here, but I'd like to point out that WP:NOT says that "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List." Certainly as long as Bach's compositions or Chopin's or Debussy's are considered relevant information, Liszt's should be as well.--Sermesara 15:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Nothing wrong with a Liszt list. One of the great composers, as anyone who's ever played 'Consolation' will attest. This information is obviously encyclopedic but equally can't go into his main biographical article, it seems an obvious thing to have and a strange thing to want to delete.  Many of these individual pieces could have their own articles and this list might turn into a useful repository of red links still to do. Nick mallory 12:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Nominator seems to have misunderstood the guidelines.--Michig 12:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Snowball keep Liszt's contributions are prolific enough that this is not an unnecessary article. Yng  varr  14:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, I will assume good faith but this easily passes WP:LISZT. --Dhartung | Talk 15:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Sometimes I'm glad punnery is not a bannable offense. Even for megaton-warhead classes of puns. ARGH! —Quasirandom 19:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep not sure why this was nominated. Ridernyc 17:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete WP is not a list - that's spelled out in WP:NOT#DIR. This item up for deletion is a list.  NO brainer - it fails WP:NOT#DIR.   17:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KoshVorlon (talk • contribs)
 * Comment, to quote the WP:NOT policy that you keep referring to, "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic". Perhaps you should have another read of the guidelines (including WP:LISTS) and reconsider this nomination.--Michig 17:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Kosh Volrlon, if you want WP:NOT#DIR to mean that no lists are allowed, you have to make your case at the talk page of What Wikipedia is not, not attempt to delete an article based only on standards you wish WP:NOT#DIR had. Otherwise this AfD appears a case of WP:POINT. --Oakshade 18:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep, there is absolutely nothing wrong with having lists of works in this encyclopedia of ours, especially when we're talking such famous artists as Liszt. 96T 20:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - This complements the Franz Liszt article, in the same way that many important writers or composers have a separate article to list their works. Goochelaar 21:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's not a directory. A list of a composer's notable compositions, or an actor's film appearances, a sculptor's sculptures, etc. does not constitute a directory.  Especially considering that the vast majority are links to Wikipedia articles.  If a person has so many accomplishments that an expansion list is called for, then it's a legitimate list, and not a directory.   Th e Tr ans hu man ist    06:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - as per Goochelaar  Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere!  (Whisper...) 04:54, 17 October 2007 (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.