Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by D12 (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 was Delete. While AFD is not cleanup, it seems like the votes are for deleting this particular article. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by D12
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A trivial list. Redundant to D12 discography. Koala15 (talk) 15:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose per rationale given by another editor at the last nomination, "The logic in the nomination is flawed. The two articles serve different purposes and the discography article omits most song titles" and my comment at the Snoop Dogg nomination by the same editor which reads, "The nominator has given his opinion why the whole of the "List of songs recorded by Foo" may be considered for deletion but has failed to explain why the Snoop Dogg list should be singled out. If the nominator thinks that the category should be deleted he should nominate accordingly, singling out certain artists according to personal taste does not benefit Wikipedia." --Richhoncho (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment, when do you plan on nominating "List of songs..." articles like this one or this one for deletion? Or is there a reason that they should receive different treatment?  Azealia 911  talk  17:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Well for some artists a list like this may make sense, but for this group everything here is basically covered in their discography. Koala15 (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * How exactly did you come to that conclusion? Here's some figures.
 * The featured list List of songs recorded by Ariana Grande lists 44 individual song entries.
 * Ariana Grande discography mentions 29 of the entries in the article.
 * Meaning that 15 songs from the "List of songs" article are not covered in the discography.


 * List of songs recorded by D12 lists 89 individual song entries.
 * D12 discography mentions 25 of the entries in the article.
 * Meaning that 64 songs from the "List of songs" article are not covered in the discography.


 * If one of the two articles were to be AfD'd, it would surely be the Ariana Grande list, no? Do you still stand by your claim that this article is redundant to the discography? Strong keep'. Azealia 911  talk  19:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * . I think we should also note that Koala15's nominations past and present all relate to rappers. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if the genre of the artists brought to AfD has anything to do with it, but they all seem to be very basic, messy, unsourced lists. I sense that having them deleted is an easy cleanup, a way of sweeping them under the rug and getting them out of the way without actually working on them if you get what I mean.  Azealia 911   talk  11:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * . I am not sure I would call any of the articles basic or messy, but I concur they are unreferenced, but that's not grounds for deletion either. If the nominator wishes to point out I have made an error in my accusation I would apologise and retract my "rapper" comment, although to be fair one of the nominations was for a "hiphop artist". --Richhoncho (talk) 08:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

, could you please give an indication as to weather you wish to proceed with this AfD? If you withdraw, it can speedily be closed as nobody else has !voted delete. Just suggesting it as opposed to letting this drag on until it's closed in a few days. That is, unless you still think the article should be deleted. Thanks,  Azealia 911  talk  23:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note from 1st AFD closer - Incase anyone's confused with the first AFD closure - I originally closed based on this AFD (I'm sure I closed about 3 or 4 from that nominator relating to these I think)... It made sense at the time anyway . – Davey 2010 Talk 00:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete it's WP:LISTCRUFT, a lot of non-notable songs, unsourced, all we need to know is in D12 discography already Kraxler (talk) 01:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I repeat what I said before, are lists like this one or this one cruft? Considering they also have corresponding discography articles?  Azealia 911  talk  01:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If you ask me whether WP:OTHERSTUFF exists, I'll answer yes. But, your two examples have a reference appended to each song, and the unlinked entries do not grossly outnumber the blue-linked songs. Kraxler (talk) 01:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, the ever over-used otherstuffexists, Wikipedia's answer to Godwin's law. An articles current state should not be viable reasoning for deletion, but its potential. Is the article a dire mess? Completely. Does it have the potential to be a complete, referenced list? Yes.  Azealia 911  talk  02:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Yelawolf for what happens to unsourced FANCRUFT/LISTCRUFT. Kraxler (talk) 02:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Then why should that Afd take precedence over Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Tupac Shakur, which resulted in keep? Or the more recent BIG K.R.I.T keep decision? It's all WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and quite irrelevant to the discussion here. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's all OTHERSTUFF, I just showed that "keep" is as much a possible outcome of this AfD as "delete". It's to be decided on the merits of this subject, and not any other. Kraxler (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

If by "what happens", you mean the opinion of you and two other editors at a relatively quiet AfD, then yes ok, there's one example of what happened. But until you can clearly show me that poor referencing is a cause for deletion, and not just a way of sweeping clutter under the rug as opposed to working on said article, I'm not buying it. As of the current listed examples of reasons for deletion, I'm not seeing any that this list applies to. Take note of number 6 too, "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources" not "Articles that are currently not attributed to reliable sources". If anything, an easy referencing method would be the respective albums's listed in the articles' liner notes or AllMusic credits. As for you calling fancruft, preposterous. Someone making a comprehensive "List of songs" article for an artist is most definitely not cruft. I just sourced 35+ entries in the list. Will resume when I wake up.  Azealia 911  talk  02:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * LISTCRUFT applies when the non-notable stuff by far exceeds the notable part. It's 64 nn to 25 n, by your count. This list is just a pretext to squeeze more info on 64 non-notable songs into Wikipedia. Kraxler (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Gonna agree with Kraxler here, article is unnecessary (WP:LISTCRUFT)! I agree that this list is just for squeezing more info on 64 non-notable songs on Wikipedia. MrWooHoo (talk) 02:18, 14 September 2015 (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.