Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs in Rock Band 2


 * 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 per the snowball clause. MuZemike 22:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

List of songs in Rock Band 2

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

WP:DIRECTORY seems to apply here. Listcruft could also apply, as well as WP:NOTGUIDE. In any event, this is something not suited for Wikipedia but for a game guide site. ArcAngel (talk) 01:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC) I agree it should be kept, it's just like a track listing for an album, which I often look up on Wikipedia. I find this article very useful, and I disagree with the above, in that I'm not sure this information would be as accessible on a game-guide site. I think of a game guide as offering more strategy, etc. This is a listing of useful information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.252.117.164 (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Numerous precedent exists for articles of this type, see Category:Music video game soundtracks.  This information is notable, encyclopedic, and well-referenced. Song lists for music games are equally notable to a track listing on a musical album article.  Oren0 (talk) 02:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: per Oren0. Well sourced and commonplace. Metty 04:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: per Oren0. This is no different than a track listing for an album, the listing is part of why the game is notable, and having a separate article allows not having a giant table in the main article. None of the categories under WP:NOTDIRECTORY apply to this article, and it tells what the game content is, not how to finish the game (as a guide would). PaulGS (talk) 08:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * KEEP: The page is far more useful than any other collection of the same information found elsewhere, because here it can be easily sorted, and is always up to date. - Keithustus (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The list is not a directory, nor cruft, nor a guide, and thus none of the reasons provided for deletion in the nomination are valid. Rlendog (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per comments on similar AFD. --Taelus (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. As per other similar lists. Robsinden (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per WP:SNOW and WP:ITSCRUFT. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 02:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as the notability of this data is not clear. The sources cited in the article (3 at the last count) are from Questionable sources, namely fansite forums, or they merely reguritate press releases. Since here is no significant coverage from sources which are both reliable and independent, this article reads like a product guide rather than an encylopedic article. This article might make a useful FAQ on a fansite, but this syntheis of sources is not appropriate for Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * These contents can unequivically be sourced through reliable sources, i.e. published magazines, and as such is beyond appropriate for the paperless encyclopedia anyone can edit. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 13:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And I don't understand the synthesis comment. Using multiple sources does not violate WP:SYNTH and I am not seeing the sources synthesized in an inapprorpiate manner. Rlendog (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What is the source of the track listing, for instance? A list stitched together from press releases, and which is not complete. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Referencing can certainly be improved for this article, but that in itself s not a reason for deletion as long as the necessary sources are available. And using multiple sources for different facts (including different elements of a list) does not violate WP:SYNTH.  Each of these songs can be sourced to a reference without synthesizing information from multiple references. Rlendog (talk) 19:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Not a directory, this is a culturally significant collocation of notable tracks. MarkSteward (talk) 13:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per arguments made in a similiar AfD here. I feel this series of AfD's could've been much better handled than creating what is apparently 6-7 unique ones. -- TRTX T / C 17:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong and Speedy Keep per A nobody's comments --Teancum (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:ITSCRUFT is not a valid reason for deletion. Please avoid nominating articles for deletion until you learn how to use a valid argument or don't use it at all. Vodello (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2009 (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.