Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs with more than one music video (3rd 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 as non-noteable. Rlevse 14:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

List of songs with more than one music video
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The short deletion reason is this: who cares? Having more than one music video is not a notable concept so why should there be a list of them on Wikipedia? It's simply an indiscriminate list full of WP:OR. Axem Titanium 06:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete On the one hand, counting is not OR, and the number is finite, so a list would be possible. But what possible reason is there for this list? As a crude indication of the importance of the songs? It's a very crude measure indeed, judging by the reasons for the examples--some for localization, some for censorship, some for re-creation a decade later in another style, to take a few I can decipher. I don;'t think this is encyclopedic now, or is ever likely to be. DGG (talk) 07:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep It's quite rare for a song to have 2 versions (or in some cases 3) of a promo video. It is maintainable, and encyclopedic to boot.  It needs a little cleanup (a-z heading, for example) and the inclusion criteria moved from the talk page to the top of the article. A good list of a notable event that shouldn't go down the knee-jerk delete-all-lists-culture that exists on WP. Lugnuts 08:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment also using the rationale of "who cares?" for deletion sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You could apply the "who cares" logic to virtually every article on here. Lugnuts 08:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What I mean is that there is no outside commentary on the concept of "songs with more than one music video" because the concept itself is not notable. I believe I've completely backed up my statement of "who cares" with a valid deletion reason. Axem Titanium 16:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The question isn't whether multiple videos are rare, but whether it is encyclopedic to have a list that differentiates between the items on the list and the broader category by a trivial distinction. The article itself says that it will never "satisfy any objective standard for completeness.'' eaolson 13:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOT of loosely associated topics; a song having two music videos is no more notable than a song with only one music video. List based on a trivial connection. Masaruemoto 20:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I dont think the intersection is trivial. The list serves its purpose in my view which is to group elements having a certain non-trivial property.  The reason for the songs having more than one video should be explored in each songs' page.  I guess the hard thing is that it is very subjective to determine if this intersection is trivial or not.  My view is that if a song has two music videos it should certainly be mentioned in the song's article.  This establishes the notability of having two music videos.  Since this is notable, I have no problem with having a list of songs that have this non-trivial property.  Brusegadi 02:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that we, as editors, can't say that having 2+ music videos is notable; it must be said by an outside source. Otherwise, it would be WP:OR to call the concept notable. Axem Titanium 02:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I understand that. My point is that if in a song's article it is mentioned that the song has two videos, and it is properly sourced, then having two videos is notable.  Otherwise it would not be included in the song's article.  Thus I feel that the notability issue does not necessarily have to be addressed here, but in each song's page.  Otherwise we would be stretching notability to work against the spirit of the encyclopedia.  Generally speaking, 'list of...' can be hard to source in general, but easy for the individual element in the list.  So, to all those who say this is a trivial intersection, I ask them to reconsider per my comments.  Thank you, Brusegadi 03:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete This is extremely trivial information (to me) and also a list of loosely associated topics Corpx 02:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Corpx feel it does not need a separate article.Harlowraman 02:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - DGG put it beautifully. WP:NOT - Loosely associated information.  It can be mentioned in the song's page, but we don't need a list.  Maybe a cat (but that could easily get taken to CFD).  G iggy\Talk 07:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete These songs are not primarily notable for having more than one music video, so it's a trivial intersection. This information is best mentioned in the song's article. Spellcast 11:36, 26 August 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.