Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs featuring cowbells (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 of the debate was keep. howcheng  [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149;  e  ] 19:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

List of songs featuring cowbells
This was kept before here but it haven't change much since. I just don't see how this page is useful in any ways. Listcruft Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 03:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, I don't see how this list is useful either. &mdash; J I P  | Talk 06:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. List-cruft.  I have a fever and the perscription is not more cowbell.  Movementarian 08:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * More cowbell - in other words, keep. This is a useful list ... I cannot think of another place on the Internet where a huge list of songs with cowbell in them is presented.  --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 10:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Which of course begs the question of why a list of songs with cowbell in them should be presented in the first place. &mdash; J I P  | Talk 10:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge. As mentioned in the previous debate. Cowbells are sufficiently uncommon in modern music to make a list of these songs more useful than a list of songs featuring guitars etc. - Mgm|(talk) 11:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, per above Tom Harrison (talk) 14:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete pointless list even if ya gotta have more cowbell. Eusebeus 14:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I checked several of these on Google and they were legitimate...strange but true. Durova 14:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge into Cowbell. Useless listcruft on its own, and cowbell isn't exactly a massive article. Proto t c 15:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep/Merge. It is easy to see how this article could be useful to anyone wanting to know about the cowbell. If someone wanted to know about the cowbell, they would probably want to hear it in context. This list makes that possible. That said, it might make sense to merge this with the cowbell article. --jackohare 16:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete list cruft. (probably initiated as a response to the old simpsons joke "more cowbell"). --אריאל יהודה 18:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It was actually initiated because a conservatory-attending friend of mine bemoaned the fact that there was no list of popular music recordings including the cowbell. It had a specific and serious purpose. The cowbell is rare enough in popular music, and unusual enough in general, to warrant at least a skeleton list.--Benn M. 02:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep No doubt inspired by the SNL skit, but regardless of why the use of cowbell in songs may be of interest, it is.WilyD 19:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. List of notable songs with a verifiable, NPOV criterion for inclusion.  What's the problem?  Smerdis of Tlön 19:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comments. I don't have enough information to vote yet, but I'm not sure this article is sufficently sourced. Yes there is an external link to the Cowbell Project, but that is just one guy's single page. His list itself contains no references, and he doesn't have any contact info. But he does have a "submit a song" button. Is that how his list was generated, and if so, is his list valid? HOW did he research this? It couldn't have been easy. Does our article have any other source? If so, what? If not, I'd have to say it's it unverified, plus it must be copyvio from the Cowbell Project. I've put this to the article's creator and hope for a response. Herostratus 21:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It is unverified personal research, originally by myself, but the vast majority being by members of this community. --Benn M. 02:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. -- JJay 22:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Hardvice 22:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unverified original research, - squibix 00:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there's no way to counter that. I've moved it to my userpage as a compromise, should this vote succeed. --Benn M. 02:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have a fever and the perscription is more verified cowbell. --Calton | Talk 01:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This would not be a useful category, and it is not a useful list either. silsor 04:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikicities should set up a "Cruftopedia". Jacoplane 04:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete with argument as this is not a voting, I'll state my arguments. The use of cowbells is dependent on a particular artist interpretation (for example, you could play beatle's song on xylophone), in other words, the songs per se don't "feature" instruments. Moreover, a given artist sometimes change instrumentations at different concerts or presentations, and thus either this list becomes inaccurate or incomplete: if it includes songs always interpreted with cowbells it should be emptyied as differnet interpretations happen, or it would encompass pretty much any song that has ever used at least once a cowbell. -- ( drini's page  &#x260E;  ) 04:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * See the disclaimer at the top of the page: it states that only studio recordings are acceptable submissions. --Benn M. 02:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Needs more verified cowbell.  Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 08:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, WP needs more Cowbell Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 18:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, and here's my already stated position: Talk:List_of_songs_featuring_cowbells. I would also move to freeze the page, if it continues to be such a bone of contention in the community. --Benn M. 02:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep after considering all the various issues. Here are my reasons:
 * I'm quite inclined to vote Keep on any article that has previously passed deletion review, on the principle of stare decisis. I'm not super enthusiastic about the tactic of Well I didn't get it deleted, I'll try again in six months. Unless the article has greatly changed, isn't that kind of disrespecting the participants in the previous decision? I hope that the resolving administrator will take this into consideration.
 * On consideration, I'm not that troubled in this case by verifiability or original research issues. That is not intended to prevent trivial and/or patently obvious original research. It's not really "original research" to state that Mississippi Queen has a cowbell any more than it is to state that it has "Mississippi" in its title. It's just obvious. Similarly, verifiability is achieved just by listening to the song. (And if Ben was able to cite, say, a Spin magazine article as a source, well, the author of that article would have used the same research method: listening to the songs. So how would that be better?)
 * On consideration, I'm not worried about copyvio, even if the list is copied from somewhere else, which apparantly it isn't anyway. Simple collections of data are not copyrightable.
 * I find Ben's argument's convincing. Absent an original research issue or a copyvio issue, of course it should be kept. Are we next to delete (say) "List of symphonies scored for guitar". "List of concertos scored for glass harmonica". Is there a general hostility toward Wikipedia containing any information about nonstandard instrumentation in musical compositions, or am I missing something? &#91;&#91;User:Herostratus&#124;Herostratus]] 04:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Those are all great points + cowbells sound good. -- JJay 04:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep per previous discussion, especially that cowbells are unusual enough for each song to be interesting. Kappa 06:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep A group I occasionally contribute to had a discussion of cowbell songs which went on for a couple months, revived a year or so later and continued for some weeks afterward. There's much interest in the cowbell. Why, I don't know, but I find it far more interesting than rap, anyway. Doovinator 02:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per previous discussion. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 10:24, 19 December 2005 (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.