Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Playlist


 * 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The result was   Withdrawn Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Playlist

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Dicdef, OR. I can't see it being anything more; this is just a bunch of "X playlists are Y" definitions. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - The article needs references, but the topic of playlists is definitely notable. The "History" section of the article makes it ineligible for WP:DICDEF anyway. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as this is a notable topic with a long history going back to the early days of music radio. The topic has been discussed in depth in books and newspapers for decades, and the current article, despite its shortcomings, goes far beyond a dictionary definition.  Cullen328 (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So if sources exist, then why isn't there a damn one in the whole article?!? Don't expect the house to build itself. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep A lack of sources in a non-BLP article is not and has never been a proper criteria for deletion. WP:V clearly states "verifiable" not "verified".  Subject matter is reasonable for an article, covers the broad application of a narrowly defined term, so it is more than a dicdef.  Dennis Brown (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * SO WHERE THE HELL ARE THE FUCKING SOURCES?!??! EVERYONE IS SAYING KEEP BUT SOURCE, BUT THEY'RE NOT PROVING THAT THE SOURCES EXIST. WHERE. ARE. THE. FUCKING. SOURCES. SHOW ME THEM, BECAUSE I SEE NONE. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Please keep it WP:CIVIL. There is no justification to take this tone in a discussion.  Dennis Brown (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * http://media.curse.com/Curse.Projects.ProjectImages/15422/11910/capslock.jpg --Closedmouth (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah whatever. Show me where the sources are, 'cause I ain't seeing them. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have now added references to this article which shows that it definitely passes the general notability guideline. These sources show coverage of playlists by Reuters, The Guardian, TNW, O'Reilly Media, and MacWorld. Another source shows that it has been the subject of PhD research. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2011 (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.