Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs that feature a vocoder


 * 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 delete. -- ( drini's page &#x260E;  ) 07:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

List of songs that feature a vocoder
Delete. Pointless list. Unmanageable and impossible to ever attempt to be comprehensive or useful. -- Krash 19:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Was split off from vocoder to stop ongoing edit wars regarding which songs warranted inclusion.  It worked.  violet/riga (t) 19:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Tautology. What's next, List of songs that feature a guitar or List of songs that feature someone playing a musical instrument? Some things don't belong in an encyclopedia. -- Krash 19:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Umm, tautology? The use of a vocoder is rare enough to warrant an article, I feel.  violet/riga (t) 20:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not here to argue syntax and literal definitions. By tautology I meant your statement is true, but it does not support keeping the article. "The use of a vocoder is rare enough to warrant an article..." is, I feel, a perfectly valid argument to save the page. (Though I disagree with it.) Starting a new article "to stop ongoing edit wars regarding which songs [warrant] inclusion" is not. I don't agree with starting new pages to appease users who wish to add trivial, unencyclopedic content to existing articles.-- Krash 21:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It lasted in that article for years without opposing comment and with numerous editors amending it. I believe it does have some place in an encyclopedia, but my motivation for it was to end the edit wars - my initial comment was not intended to be a reason, but an explanation.  violet/riga (t) 21:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Useless list. Lincolnite 19:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. I don't think there needs to be a list of this here or on the vocoder page. A good article about a musical instrument doesn't need to validate itself by proving the instrument is actually used. Meekohi 20:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's possible to make a list for pretty much anything, but I think that something like this is non-notable. -Rebelguys2 22:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 00:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Seems impossible to verify and to keep up-to-date. I also question how unique the instrument is to warrant such a list. Crunch 02:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete as serious listcruft. (Listcruft being a list that appears to have been created for the sake of having a list, or a list of little interest or relevance to anyone other than serious devotees of the list subject.) Stifle 00:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. List of songs featuring cowbells survived AfD not once but twice. I have to wonder, based on precedence, if this should be withdrawn? Not that I agree with keeping either. Thoughts? -- Krash 16:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, users should be able to find examples of songs which use vocoders. Kappa 16:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per the disturbing reason of its creation, if nothing else. I'm just loving the logic here.  If several editors think that it doesn't merit inclusion in an article, simply stick "List of" in front and and it's immune to deletion.  But barring that, delete as unencyclopedic, not notable, etc. -  brenneman (t) (c)  23:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You're incorrect about the reason for creation - the edit war was regarding which songs to include, not whether to include the list or not. violet/riga (t) 23:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, that's exactly what I thought I was saying. Pushing something off into a list as a method of venue shopping is unacceptable.  It's woth asking why the songs in question don't get argued over when in "list" form. -  brenneman (t) (c)  00:14, 16 January 2006 (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.