Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louie Louie discography


 * 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 redirect to Louie Louie. Consensus is that we don't want this level of detail, but opinions are split between merge and delete. Redirection is a compromise that allows merging of any relevant content from the history to the extent that editorial consensus allows for it.  Sandstein  06:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Louie Louie discography

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Wildly indiscriminate. Violates WP:LSC - As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion, and should not contain indiscriminate lists, only certain types of lists should be exhaustive. Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence. Many, many entries are sourced only to Youtube videos, often with under 100 views - it's debatable whether they qualify as bands. The topic of covers of Louie Louie is sufficiently discussed on that article's page. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 05:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 05:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are subpages containing the actual list entries:


 * Merge (along with its subpages -- are you kidding me, there's four of them). I cannot think of any song that has four subpages to list every single time it's been covered. Greensleeves? Jingle Bells? House of the Rising Sun? WP:NOT a directory, and there's no way that all of these entries meet notability requirements. jp×g 05:20, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge some of the more notable examples into Louie Louie. This got taken way too far. Foxnpichu (talk) 13:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not merge, because those passing WP:SONGCOVER are already there, including a surfeit that need culling. This is not what WP is about as stated by the nominator, but it is still a shame to support User:Relbats's good work for deletion. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge. Principal author here. I started out cataloging "Louie Louie" (hereafter LL) versions to answer two common questions posed by music researchers and rock historians: "What is the most recorded rock song?" and "How many versions of LL are there?". That being said, apologies if I've gone a bit overboard in pursuit of completeness!  I relied on guidance from the Stand-alone lists section of WP:NOTESAL, specifically that notability is not required for individual list items if the list itself is notable and has been discussed by independent reliable sources (several of which are listed in References and External links sections). However, if the consensus is that including the non-notable versions violates WP:NOT, then I'm willing to do the work to condense the list down to notable versions only -- either as a merge with the main LL article or as something like List of artists who have recorded "Jingle Bells" or List of artists who have covered Bob Dylan songs. Relbats (talk) 20:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * . As somebody who has worked extensively on the Dylan list, the major differences are that only artists with WP pages with generally significant recordings are included, it is a reference relating to all songs written by Dylan, not just one song, which, for dozen or more songs, could (but really shouldn't) be done the same way as you have done for Louie Louie. As I said in my comment above, the notable recordings are already mentioned in the main article. There have been 2 or more attempts to delete the Jingle Bells list, including an unsuccessful nomination to delete from me. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge selectively to the "Cover versions" section of Louie Louie, and then Delete the main discog article and its four sub-pages. This is actually an impressive body of work by Relbats, of great interest to music historians, but I concur that it is not viable for Wikipedia and would be much better suited for a special interest website. I agree with the other voters above on how a list of covers by mostly non-notable people backed up by unreliable links is not appropriate here. However there are a few surprises by notable musicians, which could be used to enhance the song's article.  ☆☆☆ DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 13:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that more selectivity is needed, i.e., removing non-notable entries. That being said, I think a separate article/discography would still be justified for the many, many notable artist covers. All major artists have separate discography articles because the details would clutter the main article. Ditto for covers of songs by Dylan, Van Morrison and others. And it's worth noting that WP:SONGCOVER doesn't seem to apply in practice to standalone discographies because all works are listed, not just those with innate notability. Bottom line: a separate Louie Louie discography article would permit listing all notable versions without overcluttering (is that a word?) the main article. I want to do what's right here for WP but also align with what I see in other discographies and song listings, i.e., notable versions only in a article linked to the main page. Relbats (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * It's not clear to me what standard those proposing merge are advocating for. Personally I think we should keep the discography page and merge any version which is notable itself or done by a notable group from the four subpages. We also don't need multiple listings by the same group (e.g. a studio and a live version listed separately). My reason for keeping the discography page is that the Louie Louie article is already pretty long and even a selective merge could be enough to push that page into a place where it would need a SPLIT. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Leaning delete, per nom. This does seem like a rather indiscriminate collection of every instance when this particular song was recorded. At best, keep the main page and selectively merge the truly notable instances (i.e., those in which the cover has charted or received independent coverage beyond a passing mention of its existence) into that. BD2412  T 20:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 17:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Can somebody please close this AfD soon? I feel there is enough consensus to Merge and only little consensus to Delete. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect It is impossible to merge it into the other article. Current total version count: 4610  So just replaced it with a redirect, and preserve the article history.   D r e a m Focus  17:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge the most notable versions into Louie Louie. I checked out one subpage and while it's all an incredible job by User:Relbats, the majority are by non-notable artists, plus WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies. Definitely don't delete so it can be preserved. sixty nine   • whaddya want? •  04:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comments: Wow! A lot of work. I would like some clarification. We are discussing merging and redirecting to preserve the history. This is what seems to be many hundreds of links to Youtube, images from Discog, youtube, Amazon, SoundCloud, and no telling where else. With all due respect, it would take an equally exhaustive pile of work to check all these references. We can assume all the faith available but youtube should be used with caution because of possible copyright issues, and this would be more so just for inclusion as an external link, so would be (it would seem) far more critical as a reference. I would think many instances would fail our most basic sourcing policies and guidelines. I would not dream of tackling a source review but know we have certain policies and guidelines that indicate there could be possible violations. Looking over WP:YOUTUBE, External links, External links, External links/Perennial websites and Copyrights, it does appear this list lands in the middle of What Wikipedia is not. Video links has more views than many of these videos but the bottom line is: Can we blanket accept that every link has been verified not to be copyright violations or that can be used according to fair use, Non-free content and Non-free content criteria? This is 40 steps up from allowing or accepting some "occasional use" where links have been checked. If there are only a couple of concerns I think some caution should be advised and certainly deserving some discussion.  Otr500 (talk) 08:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Why would you have static list that continually needs updated, particularly when software e.g. a browser add-in or a custom search engine could generate the list for you, on the fly. It a large unstructured list with little encyclopedic content. So what they covered it? So what. I'm struggling to identify somebody who could actually use the information. Looking at the source article Louie Louie it does a reasonably decent job of describing how well it is covered  and by who,  without listing every band under the sun. Delete this article, the lists, which are no use to anybody.     scope_creep Talk  12:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge per above discussion. Sachin.cba (talk) 11:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: This seems like a good Fandom article but here its a catalog/directory WP:WWIN. The notable covers are already on the main article. The size of the list compared with the notable items it contains make it less than useful for navigation, so I don't believe WP:CLN would apply.  // Timothy ::  talk  14:38, 2 November 2020 (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.