Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs over fifteen minutes in length


 * 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 NO CONSENSUS. -Splash talk 04:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

List of songs over fifteen minutes in length
This has no value as a navigation tool, and no useful commentary. It's hopelessly incomplete, demonstrates no trend, and has arbitrary inclusion criteria (why not 10 minutes? or 20? or 14?). This is listcruft. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * delete unmaintainable adn pointlist list. wikipedia is not an indiscrimiante collection of info. DES (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete; I'm tired of seeing it on my watchlist. :) Also, what AMiB said. The inclusion criteria in particular bother me. This is not a "list of songs over fifteen minutes in length". It's a list of songs over fifteen minutes in length that are not classical or operas or rock operas or live or extended versions or medleys or hidden tracks  or songs divided up in funny ways......     &mdash; HorsePunchKid &rarr;&#x9F9C;  18:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's silly. Gerrit CUTEDH 18:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I think some better distinction needs to be made between "songs" and "works of music" (of which songs are just one type). Also the 15 minute qualifier is totally arbitrary, as stated.  --W.marsh 19:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete oy. Dottore So 21:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yes, 15 minutes is a bit arbitrary, but it's a quarter of an hour, if that has any meaning. It could be 10 or 30 minutes, but it's 15. Why not? Why are there 60 mintues in an hour - that's kind of arbitrary too. The criteria are a bit specific, but you can basically state them as such: no classical pieces, and the song must be a continuous song (i.e. extension by silence between a hidden track doesn't count). I kind of like the list, but I suppose it doesn't fit in too well. I'll defend it, but delete it if you must. Folkor 22:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, but perhaps it should be simply a list of unsually lengthy songs without the specific time cutoff. - SimonP 23:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep but revise and cull. This should be restricted to actual "songs" as opposed to experimental sound pieces and classical music that routinely run long. A friend of mine created a noise music piece on his computer that ran something like 3 hours. But I'd like to see someone sing for that long. 23skidoo 23:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - what would make a song a "song"? Electronic and experimental songs are still songs by most definitions. Folkor 04:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete insofar as any song can be "remixed' to be over fifteen mnutes. How do you know?  Fifteen minutes highly arbitrary (maybe Warhol influenced?).  Jtmichcock 03:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - Remixes aren't allowed in the list. If you mean that in the production of the original version, a song can be mixed to any length, that's true - but that's part of the art of making a song. Folkor 17:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per HorsePunchKid. D e nni &#9775;  05:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Agree with SimonP. --Andylkl 17:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I found it useful and I have no idea how to find this out otherwise. Also as a category this would be essentially goofy.--T. Anthony 17:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and move to List of unusually lengthy songs, and subdivide that page by certain ranges of length. i.e., the top section might be "5 to 10 minutes long" (though most songs would have to be near 10 minutes at least to be considered "unusually long", depending on the specific song), then "10 to 15 minutes long", then "15 to 20", then "20 to 30", then "30 to 1 hour", then "over 1 hour long"&mdash;something like that, anyway. Putting them in order of length just seems to make more sense to me than putting them in alphabetical order by artist, though I can see strong arguments for either, since the current page looks quite nice... But the reason I suggest this is, many songs are known for being "long" that only 10 or 12 or 8 minutes long, like "Hey Jude"; although it might open a can of worms and require us to start finding sources and citing them to show that the songs have been considered "unusually long" by various people, it would also remedy the arbitrary "15-minute cutoff" and protect the page from being spammed by dozens of non-noteworthy songs that just happen to be over 15 minutes long. -Silence 20:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. Completely arbitrary, purposeless, borderline indiscriminate collection of Hornbyesque information. Inclusion/exclusion criteria is frankly bizarre and entries could run into the tens of thousands if every jazz, techno, arabic, african etc. piece running +15 minutes was added. For an example, see the more than 200 entries for Klaus Schulze. As few of the songs have any notabilty, for length or otherwise, should be called List of mostly non notable songs by many obscure bands over 15 minutes in length. --JJay 01:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. But I like my idea more. Make it more vague and require sourcing for notability; there are plenty of unusually long songs out there that have nonetheless (or as a result?) achieved a fair amount of popularity, or sometimes infamy. It's not a completely valueless topic; we just need to assert notability with more vigor, and change the arbitrary "15 minute" limit to a vaguer, but ultimately more complete, listing of especially noteworthy "long" songs in general. -Silence 03:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * To clarify: a "list of unusually long songs could include every song that has been remarkably successful despite its great length, or otherwise very noteworthy songs that are unusually long for their genre. I know I'd personally be interested in such a list; what are the upper limits of length in fairly well-known songs (note: both in the English-speaking world ane elsewhere!)? "15 minutes" is too arbitrary a threshhold, and gives a false impression to some contributors that any song over 15 minutes merits inclusion, even if it's not noteworthy. A broadening (and clarification) of this list's topic would allow us to start working on this problem. -Silence 13:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete as per JJay. MCB 07:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep very long songs are notable.  Grue   18:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - clearly, we need to reach some sort of compromise. Even though I like the page, I can admit that it has gotten a bit out of hand. Assuming we do keep the page around in some manner (which I still promote), we ought to decide what the best way to do that is. Folkor 21:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - I think it is an interesting article, although "over 15 minutes" is a bit questionable, and this list could in fact go on forever. -- jeffthejiff  ( talk ) 20:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Possibly "the bar" should be raised to 20 minutes and it be limited to songs by noted singers or bands.(Several songs listed are by red-linked groups I've never heard of)--T. Anthony 05:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No, the bar should be lowered to at the very least ten minutes (and preferrably even shorter), and the list should be limited to noteworthy songs by noteworthy bands. :) The challenge here is not to make the list require increasingly long songs to get in, but to require citations showing that the songs have been considered unusually long by noteworthy or reputable sources. "15+ minutes" on its own is an arbitrary number (as any number would be), but the general concept of "unusually long songs" is a highly significant and relevant topic to analyze in a list such as this. -Silence 08:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * After I posted that I changed my mind. Although I think I'd keep it over 15 minutes rather then reducing. However the length is not the important thing, limiting it to songs and artists who are themselves notable is the main thing. That limit should start.--T. Anthony 11:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I removed most of the red names and admittedly it's still very very long.--T. Anthony 12:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I've no opinion about whether it should be at 10, 15 or 20 minutes, but the first thing I'd like to suggest is to remove entries which don't even have an article about the artist yet, similar to the list of albums article. --Andylkl (talk) (contrib) 08:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete &#8766; The subject of the article is completely arbitrary, as noted above by several other individuals. → Ξxtreme Unction  {yak ł blah } 13:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - As per Folkor: a summary deletion isn't a compromise. Until we can figure out more useful guidelines for keeping the article relevant, usable, and [even] more Wikipedia-friendly, there's no reason to blow the old one away. Where else do you go for data organized like this? --electric counterpoint 05:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep- The article is messy, but not worthless. Arguing that 15 minutes is questionable is pointless, as who's to decide what a non-questionable amount of time is?Dark Weasel 07:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per JJay. KillerChihuahua 12:13, 26 November 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.