Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs under one minute in length (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. Shimeru 02:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

List of songs under one minute in length

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This list suffers from arbitrary inclusion criteria. What is substantially different between these songs and songs 61 seconds in length? Or 62 seconds? They're all short. The notion that this is a notable way to classify songs is original research, specifically original synthesis. I suggest we delete. — coe l acan — 03:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Worthless list. Selection criteria created out of thin air for no particular reason, WP:NOT--Dacium 04:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak delete I was going to say keep, but after seeing how few other articles link to this article, I changed my mind. --Matthew UND (talk) 07:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Jusi link a few articles and provide references/external links. Dalejenkins 08:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In what way would that solve the problems laid out in the nomination? The list is a classic instance of arbitrary cutoff, and deciding upon such a cutoff is always original research. Why this list and not "list of songs under 53.446 seconds? What on earth makes this anything but an indiscriminate list? Maybe the reason so few articles link into it is that it's arbitrary and nobody thought it was worth linking to. — coe l acan — 08:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A minute is a very commonly used unit of time. 53.446 seconds is not. Having songs under one minute means that the song is short enough to be only measured in just seconds. It seems like a perfectly resonable cut-off time for defining a song as being short.Tumble 03:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A block of thirty seconds is also a very commonly used chunk of time. Having songs under thirty seconds would be another way to list songs short enough to only be measured in seconds. We agree that what this list actually is is a "list of short songs". Where we disagree is that one definition of short is better than another. You believe that <60 seconds "seems like a perfectly resonable cut-off time for defining a song as being short". I disagree, and I point out that your gut feeling on this amounts to nothing but a violation of WP:SYN, which is policy. — coe l acan — 08:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * delete This is a ridiculous list, a lot of it is unverifyable and unreferenced. --Greatestrowerever 11:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete It is unverifiable and unreferenced. It is Fancruft. Lizzie Harrison 15:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unmaintainable list, arbitrary inclusion criteria, everything that Wikipedia is WP:NOT.  Specifically, this list fails as a list of loosely related topics, and there is no compelling reason to hang on to a list of songs just because they are of length X or less.  A r k y a n  &#149; (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per everyone else. Also, the list is long already, and it will just get longer. Acalamari 17:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Also, the list is long already, and it will just get longer., haha, thanks for that, professor. Lugnuts 19:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, as per Coelacan. The list has no use whatsoever, and could include so many millions of songs. Also, Lugnuts, you provide absolutely no reasoning for your keep vote. J Milburn 19:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Better than using weasel words like "Worthless", "ridiculous" and "Unmaintainable". Lugnuts 20:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, strongly. This nomination sets up a classic Catch 22: if a list has a clear, bright line criterion for inclusion or exclusion, that criterion can then be called "arbitrary", and its selection then becomes "original research" or "original synthesis"?   Of course, vaguer criteria are called "subjective" here.  If current trends continue, those policies will end up meaningless officialese, without any more meaning beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  This is a list of songs under a minute in length.  What original theory does it introduce?  How exactly is it "analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor"? To the extent that it needs references, reference to the recordings upon which they appear would seem to be sufficient; that isn't grounds for deletion.  Obviously the creator has put a lot of work into creating this page.  Please remember the Golden Rule, people.  - Smerdis of Tlön 20:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It is no more arbitrary than a Top 10 or Fortune 500. Are some numbers natural and based on reason, and others unnatural and arbitrary? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No. And all the bands without articles should be deleted off the list too. Lugnuts 17:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment yes, would your position be the same on List of songs under one minute and fourteen seconds in length? Carlossuarez46 17:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a good question, Richard. Some numbers are natural, such as pi and e and phi. The number in question here, however, corresponds to 1/1440 of an Earth revolution, and that is arbitrary. You're getting misled by the fact that this appears to be a simple whole number. It's not which number that is important so much as the idea that any particular number shall mean "short song", because this is indeed intended to be a list of short songs. The difference between this and a Top 10 list or Fortune 500 list is that those numbers are chosen independently of Wikipedia, so we aren't endorsing them, rather we are merely reporting them from other sources, as WP:ATT requires. We aren't saying "a top ten list is a good way to see what's worth your time", or anything like that, we just report that another source has published a list and it has ten items. Same with Fortune 500. It's Fortune who decides on the number 500, not Wikipedia. Here, on this list, we're deciding, and that's original research. — coe l acan — 08:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep but prune it to bands with articles written for them, as to atest notability (of the bands, of course) --FateClub 22:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete, I disagree that it's unmaintainable, but it's clearly arbitrary. There are plenty of lists on Wikipedia that are neither arbitrary nor subjective, so Smerdis of Tlön's argument that removing arbitrary lists will leave us only subjective ones clearly fails.  And Fortune 500 is defined outside of Wikipedia, so it's not original synthesis (not that List of Fortune 500 companies exists anyway).  I don't see any other keep arguments worth rebutting.  This is not a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT because I do like it, but it clearly fails WP:NOT.  Xtifr tälk 22:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm still not sure how this is supposed to be "arbitrary." For a list of very short songs, one minute or less seems a reasonable cut-off: it's based on a round figure of a standard measure.  At any rate, whether it's arbitrary or not, claiming that this is "original research" or an "original synthesis" ignores and distorts the actual language and meaning of those policies beyond recognition.  What we're left with instead is a list on a popular culture subject that's certain to draw hostile attention, that at least one editor found interesting or useful.  The only policy I see applying here is that Wikipedia is still not paper. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, one minute is a nice round number, but it's still arbitrary. Why not one second?  Or one hour?  Or one year?  Phrase your answer in the form of a citation to a reliable source, please.  The question is, ultimately, who decided this was a worthy topic for a list?  If the only possible answer is "some random Wikipedian", then that makes this a novel synthesis!  Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia, is supposed to distill what other, reliable sources have written about.  Yes, it's not paper, but it's still supposed to be an encyclopedia.  I think this is a great list, and I hope it finds a home on the Internet somewhere.  I just don't think Wikipedia is the place for it.  Maybe Wikisource would be good.  Xtifr tälk 10:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. The policy about "original syntheses" you are referring to actually speaks about "analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor".  This, by contrast, is a list of songs, and if there is some tendentious point to it, I haven't found it and no one else has pointed it out either.  These policies lose meaning if they are extended so far beyond the things they were meant to cover.  Lists on Wikipedia serve a valuable indexing function, and they indeed can be about arranging facts in ways that some random user found useful or interesting. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Arbitrary inclusion threshhold- what is special about songs up to 59 seconds in length? Why single these out from others? Should we have a list for songs between 1 min and 1 min 59 seconds inclusive as well? I see no reason to present this information in this matter and clear policy against doing so. WjBscribe 10:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as per Richard Arthur Norton, FateClub. I am of the opinion that sixty seconds is the most appropriate length of time for this list, but I am not fully convinced that it needs to exist in the first place. -- Ianiceboy 15:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Arkyan. -Panser Born-   (talk)  01:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Smerdis of Tlön. If a specific inclusion criterion is used, a list is labelled "arbitrary". If a vague criterion is used, it's "subjective". If a "Top 10" list is presented, it's a violation of WP:NOT. To me, this is solely an issue of content organisation. One minute (60 seconds) is a common cut-off point. If anyone thinks 61 seconds works equally well, propose it on the talk page and see if you can gather consensus to change it. If you can't, then that's a sign that that proposed organisation of content is not community-supported. Cheers, Black Falcon 07:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. No assertion of notability. - Aagtbdfoua 13:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, but split into separate lists, or cut out the less notable songs. If I knew more about music, I'd do this myself. 60 seconds is perfectly reasonable given the way we measure time. Black Falcon brings up particularly good points above.  Rook wood  Dept. of Mysteries 22:14, 7 April 2007 (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.