Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of musicians with multiple self-titled albums


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 04:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

List of musicians with multiple self-titled albums

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Trivial intersection. I see nothing particularly notable about acts that have had two or more self-titled albums. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Trivial, but these are still notable articles in their own right (If they aren't, then AfD them first). I wouldn't bother to create this list myself (Why?!), but that's no reason to seek its deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How do you think it meets WP:SALAT? Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Because the definition of the list is clear and well-bounded. I wouldn't claim the members of this list were exhaustive, or even that it was an exhaustive list of all potentially wiki-notable albums that would meet it. I certainly wouldn't want the role of maintaining it. However I don't see anything in WP:SALAT that this conflicts with. I certainly don't see it as being either too specific, or too broad. With WP:SALAT particularly in mind, I see no concern that either would, or ought to, split into List of hip-hop musicians with multiple self-titled albums, List of rastabilly skank musicians with multiple self-titled albums etc. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and "lists that are too specific are also a problem" from SALAT. VG &#x260E; 21:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Interesting, comprehensive, neither too broad nor too vague. Pro hib it O ni o ns  (T) 22:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. On the proviso i can create a list of rubbish lists on wikipedia. I'll start with this article. Operating (talk) 23:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Eponymity is a non-encyclopedic categorization. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as a trivia list. Mangoe (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  TravellingCari  03:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per Mangoe -- Klein zach  05:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Deletle - this is a trivia list. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete For too specific for my liking. WP:SALAT -- neon white talk 13:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:LC items 1, 2, 5, 7, and 10. Stifle (talk) 15:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep From where I sit, it passes WP:LC 1 & 2 (I have used the list for reference both as an editor and as a music collector), 5 (musical artists continue to, confusingly, name multiple albums after themselves), and 7 (there is content about commonly used nicknames or other differentiators used by music fans to tell these albums apart). One man's trivia is another's useful information; as a user of this list, I don't find it trivial at all -- Foetusized (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If the word "multiple" were not in the list criterion, I'd agree with you. Stifle (talk) 14:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a list with very limited usefulness, and is of interest only to a very small number of people. Reyk  YO!  21:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 *  Strong keep . Says who? The article is linked to from a lot of articles. It serves a useful disambuguation purpose, differentiating creative works from the same artists with the same title. Pro hib it O ni o ns  (T) 07:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Is voting twice reallly called for? And both times strongly? That's pretty strong!Yobmod (talk) 09:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Duplicate vote by same user as voted earlier struck through. Probably a mistake, given it was either side of a re-list, but striking for the benefit of whoever closes this. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 11:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTAVOTE anyway Andy Dingley (talk) 14:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If it's listed twice, I'll restate my opinion. This appears to be a bad-faith nom as it is; major contributors and the relevant wikiproject were not notified. Pro hib it O ni o ns  (T) 15:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't think anyone can have a problem with that, hence why I didn't strike what you wrote. But a bad-faith nom is stretching it, I think: major contributors don't have to be notified, nor WikiProjects - infact, as far as I'm aware, no one does, but it's generally customary to notify only the creator, no? That's all I do when I nom something, and I certainly hope my nominations aren't taken in bad faith... AllynJ (talk | contribs) 15:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Seems pretty much a trivial intersection (ie good for answering trivial puruits questions). Intersection with albums/films with any similar titles have been created (Films with cities in their title etc), this doesn't seem any less trivial to me. Being intersed in an artist who has done this would not induce me to want a list of others, except for banal curiosity reasons. Agree with those saying it fails items 1,2 and 8 of WP:LC.Yobmod (talk) 09:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Question Is there a difference between untitles and self-titled? Most of these seem untitled to me. the self-title is just given by marketing types, cos people expect one.Yobmod (talk) 09:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Throwing Muses maintain that their 1986 album was untitled and their 2003 album was self-titled, but I don't know how anyone would be able to make that distinction from the album covers/packaging. -- Foetusized (talk) 11:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, completely trivial list. Fails WP:LC on multiple levels (1, 2, 7 (although it wouldn't be good as a category, either) & 10). AllynJ (talk | contribs) 11:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Completely trivial. It doesn't really tell you anything, which I think is the definition of trivial. it's just a fact. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:LC is not a guideline or policy. It's a personal essay and not accepted by the community. Therefore it has no weight whatsoever in a deletion discussion. Deletion recommendation based solely on this article are likely to be disregarded. -- neon white talk 09:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because the page and its contents are an essay, doesn't mean the points in it aren't based on policies which are perfectly reasonable reasons to delete: particularly, its ideas include WP:TRIVIA, WP:OR, WP:NOT, etc etc. Just because people choose to cite listcruft as an all-encompassing term covering one or more of those other core policies doesn't mean their arguments should be dismissed out of hand. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 15:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Then those policies need to be mentioned, you can't point to an essay and say 'delete because of that'. It's just not a valid reason for deletion and will carry even less weight than pointing to a policy or guideline with no explaination. Many of the points on WP:LC are not in line with existing policy or community consensus and are not agreed guidelines. For Example 'The list was created just for the sake of having such a list' - Everything on wikipedia is created for the sake of having an article on it. This is not a good reason to delete. 'The list is of interest to a very limited number of people' - Doesnt make it non-notable. 'The list has no content beyond links to other articles, so would be better implemented as a (self-maintaining) category' Directly violates policy WP:CLN and guidelines on navigational lists. 'The list's membership is volatile and requires a disproportionate amount of effort to keep up to date.' - There is no limit set on the amount of time or effort a wikipedia article should or shouldn't take to keep in order and up to date. In the end these are all just personal opinions and not based on any agreed policy or guideline. -- neon white talk 16:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with your premise completely, I just don't think people's opinions should be discounted out of hand for pointing to the wrong page. If any just said "delete per WP:LC" I would agree, but none of those citing it said just that - the three people pointed out at least one individual part of the essay which are built in policy. Their opinions shouldn't just be ignored, that defies common sense - but I would expect any admin with decent experience closing AFDs would be capable of weighing the opinions of those who quote it. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 06:41, 3 October 2008 (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.