Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Points of interest related to Lists on Wikipedia Portal – Category – WikiProject – Deletions

Deletion Sorting Project
Project page (talk) Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic)
AfD: Today, Yesterday edit · changes

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Lists. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting.

Anyone can help maintain the list on this page:

• To add a new AfD discussion (once it has already been opened on WP:AFD):

• Look through the list of current discussions to find items related to this subject area.
• Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
• You can also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Lists}}<small>—~~~~</small> to it, which will inform users that it has been listed here.
• There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

• Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
• You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Lists.

Please note that adding an AfD to, or removing it from, this page does not add it to, or remove it from, the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page, before adding it to this page.

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Purge page cache

Watch this page

See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists of people

Contents 1 Lists 1.1 List of schools in South Korea 1.2 VH1's Greatest Metal songs of all time 1.3 List of off-roading organizations 1.4 List of early flying machines 1.5 List of street names of drugs 1.6 Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones 1.7 List of films which share their name with a title of a song 1.8 List of terms for gay in different languages 1.9 List of hospitals in Indonesia

[edit] Lists

[edit] List of schools in South Korea

List of schools in South Korea (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is just a collection of external link and one miscellaneous not-sourced fact. More than 1 and half years have past but we have not seen it getting better than this. According to WP:NOTDIR and WP:LINK, this article should be deleted. Thorough recreation of this list is required for being part of Encyclopedia. Hitro 11:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Starts with the proposition that there are more than 500,000 schools in South Korea, has links to four of them... only 499,996 to go. That's probably the reason that this never went any further. Even a list only 1% complete would be too long to be useful. Mandsford (talk) 14:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, comes close to the no-content criterion for speedy deletion. Definitely not a useful list. Nyttend (talk) 23:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per above and also as a Category masquerading as a list. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 02:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. I know this isn't really relevant to deletion, but I must point it beggars belief that a country with a population of 50 million has half a million schools. Even if 20% of the population are of school age (which must be an over-estimate) that means that the average school enrolment is 20. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] VH1's Greatest Metal songs of all time

VH1's Greatest Metal songs of all time (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Lists aren't generally a copyright vio, especially as bare bones as this is. But because it's not a vio, it adds almost nothing to the encyclopedia, yes VH1 released it, but that doesn't make it notable, and I don't see any indications that outside of marketing of the segment it's inherently notable. At best, it might warrant a merge into a similar article. But every media org that makes a list doesn't need a wiki page for that list. Shadowjams (talk) 09:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete The first problem is that it lacks any reliable 3rd party inline citations. Even with those, it would still be questioned for its notability. Lastly, I think I saw a similar list to that once. Similar, but the number one was different. Either way, delete.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 09:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete unreferenced list, POV - ("greatest X of al time" is necessarily subjective). The criteria for inclusion dependent only on what the programme-makers thought would fill an hour or so of telly and attract advertising.  pablo_hablo. 11:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete For the most part, programs that come out during a sweeps month (such as the particular VH-1 "countdown show" that this comes from) are not notable enough to be talked about the next day. I imagine that this one went two hours, filled with portions of the heavy metal songs, with plenty of pre-recorded celebrity comments, commercial blocks, and stay-tuned hooks. Mandsford (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete-I don't think that weather or not it's notable is the problem, I think the problem is that it's probably the opinion of non-notable people. I've watched a clusterfuck of VH1 specials like this and they mostly just have comedians and other musicians, and although the people these specials are notable, they're opinions aren't. And I'm not insulting them. I'm just saying if this was a list created by well known critics like Robert Christiagu or Stephan Erwin, then it way be notable, but for now, it's unnotable. DELETE! KMFDM FAN ^(talk!) 23:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of off-roading organizations

List of off-roading organizations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a directory of links. That is exactly what this article is - all external links and just five Wikilinks. If the article were reduced to only wikilinks then it would have little or no value, so I propose that it is deleted. Biker Biker (talk) 20:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Per Nom. Laestrygonian3 (talk) 20:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. Parkerparked (talk) 22:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of early flying machines

List of early flying machines (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Considerable overlap with Early flight and First flying machine, all of which suffer from an unclear definition of what a "flying machine" is. This gives them particularly in their early, pre-18/19th century parts rather the character of a dump area for poorly justified claims. I nominated the list for deletion as the lists in the other two articles (Early flight#Table of flying machines and First flying machine#Claims to first piloted flight by date (19th century)) appear to be more competently written, but a merge may be ultimately a better idea. In any case, without a proper and well-referenced definition of what a flying machine is, none of the articles has a raison d'etre here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge to Early flight. There appear to be numerous overlaps between the lists in List of early flying machines and Early flight already, so a "Merge" is, to some degree, already in place. Both articles have almost zero citations for their claims, however the articles on each specific "aviator" generally have some citations. Many of these are, however, dubious. In any case, the Early flight#Table of Flying Machines section already does what List of early flying machines attempts to do, but as a part of a better written and more extensive article. I would personally say that List of early flying machines should be deleted because of similarities/overlap with Early flight and per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. However, if a Merge is to be undertaken, I believe that only list entries that satisfy one of two requirements be added to Early flight. A: The list entry has reliable citations; or B: it has its own Wikipedia article, and that article has reliable citations. Currently, List of early flying machines contains numerous entries which are red links and have no citations, and these do not need to be kept in the event of a Merge. Neil Clancy 16:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per Neil Clancy's reasoning. Uncited redlinks should not be merged. Thryduulf (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and merge the table from the article into here. This one does it better, and the other can then be a longer discussion in general. The refs are in the original articles, and can either be considered adequate enough, or copied. DGG (talk) 23:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Which article? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Merge per Neil Clancy. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of street names of drugs

List of street names of drugs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

This "article" has a long history. There have been three previous nominations for deletion, the second actually carried it out. The third was in February of this year. This thing is totally unsourced, anybody can just come in here and add whatever names they want to add, and nobody would be the wiser. This is a direct violation of Wikipedia is not a directory, is completely unmaintainable, and should be burned with fire. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable, and its a list with no criteria for inclusion. Fuzbaby (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete For the record, the article was created in good faith when I found a red link on a page buried somewhere in Wikiproject medicine. It took about 8 hours to research the names. The article is sourced, but I found inline citations for all the entries impossible to do. Since then the page has clearly become a beacon to all vandals in the world, and I think that Wikipedia would be a better place without it. It would be best if a nice admin would come along and put it out of its misery. Gilo1969 (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Encyclopedic and notable list. Sourcing needs improvement. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep- This helps those who might hear it and wonder what X name is. We can always remove the vandalism and lock the page. What message does it send if we let vandals dictate what we do here. I also see that a reliable user has been maintaining this page.Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

  Which reliable user? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Strong delete. I'm going out on a limb here because I'm basing a big chunk of this on my professional experience. (Please bear with me, I believe it is relevant). While there are a few that endure, so many change what seems to be almost weekly. From a professional perspective, I've seen lists come out from the DEA that were already outdated when they were printed. And what is meant in one city can be totally different in another city, let alone other states and countries. I can see huge sourcing and vandalism problems, as well as the fact that the vast majority of terms will be nothing more than neologisms. You can call my objection WP:OR if you want, but I see this article becoming nothing but a huge mess in the making. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Although I believe it is maintainable, I don't believe it's encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. Perhaps a substantive trim and renaming to "Common street names of drugs" with a general reference to the DEA list mentioned above would help put some kind of limit to it's growth and allow us to preserve information here. -- œ^™ 16:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. I see this as a very useful list indeed. This is yet another reason why our encyclopedia is so much better than Britannica! Baileyquarter (talk) 16:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete- Lists like these can never have valid sources. Nominator is right here that anybody can add anything they want. These are slangs and slangs have no encyclopedic standards unless they turn out to be global. Not an encyclopedic material. Hitro 20:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Apart from that, best of those street names are already included in their respective articles. Hitro 20:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Improvement of the article seems easy as we already have authoritative sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: (i) because the subject matter is not particularly encyclopaedic (WP:NOTDICT and particularly not a dictionary of slang); (ii) because of the lack of clear, inline, sourcing for such a bulky list (and the problems with maintaining such sourcing, even if an attempt were made to implement it) & (iii) because of the ephemeral nature of the material. A shorter, well-sourced list of enduring slang terms would reduce my opinion to 'weak delete' (but not to 'keep'). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones

Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

List of Billboard Hot Country Songs chart achievements (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

These are nothing but gigantic lists of unsourced, mostly unverifiable trivia, far afoul of WP:IINFO. Every single piddling detail is laid out in an excruciatingly long list, of interest to only Joel Whitburn and chart-geeks like me. Note that the Pop 100 list is also at AFD for similar claims. (I wouldn't mind mentioning, say, the longest-running #1 at the hot 100 page, but most of this is nothing but indiscriminate info.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Weak delete. Seems like listcruft to me. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 03:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Valuable statistical information about the Billboard Hot 100 across many decades. We'd do a disservice to our readers to delete such useful information. Parts, at the end, like "Additional Hot 100 achievements" is redundant and unnecessary. The rest should be kept. Orane (talk) 03:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • That it's useful is not a valid reason for inclusion. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 03:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • First off, that it's "listcruft" also isn't a valid reason. Second, I do believe that my point about it's usefulness was contextualized. The pages brigs together decades of chart statistics across many genres and many artists and compiles the info into one succinct list. It is useful— for chart researchers, for regular readers, for skeptics. The information is referenced at the bottom of the article. Orane (talk) 04:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I understand the article is referenced (some third-party references would really help though), but even that doesn't make the article notable because of its connection to Billboard, as notability isn't inherited. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 04:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I'd advise that you stop basing all your arguments on essays. Orane (talk) 04:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
          • • You might want to follow that yourself, you have yet to provide and policy or guideline for keeping this cruft. Delete per nomination, just cruft and trivia. TJ Spyke 05:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment→ For starters, how about the fact that the list in not unsourced? References are provided at the bottom of the page from the various entries written by Whitburn, Billboard etc. I am almost 100 per cent sure that inline citations could be found for this article, because the individual articles for the songs contain respective sources. The article was written this way because editors thought it distasteful to have a note/source after each sentence in every single line. The editor who nominated the article claims that the info is "unverifiable", a characterization I totally oppose. They are verifiable! The list is neutral. He claims that only Whitburn or "chart geeks" would find the information useful? Why? How does he know this? And, the nominator brazenly emphasizes that this article/list is being deleted because other lists of similar nature are being deleted. The situation is totally different. This is the main singles chart in American music. Chart achievements for component charts like the Pop 100 etc do not carry the same level of notability.

The deletion policy states that reasons for deletion includes, among others, articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed. Give editors, like myself, the chance to improve the sourcing. None of the guidelines outlined at WP is not provide evidence for the deletion of this page. It can't necessarily be considered "fan cruft", because the subject is of wide interest to a large group of people interested in music, as per the official website, the third party websites that I'll find, the numerous books written on the subject. The article needs to be cleaned up and needs improved sourcing. It does not need to be deleted. Orane (talk) 06:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - All of this information was (years ago) cluttering the Hot 100 page and so I cleaned it up and spun it off. It's sourced and notable and clearly a big part of pop culture. FYI, under its previous title it was nominated in 2008 (result "keep). - eo (talk) 10:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Orane. Notable enough to warrant a separate article. Europe22 (talk) 12:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete This is a list of trivia and statistical anomalies: Two Tommy James & the Shondells covers ("I Think We're Alone Now" by Tiffany and "Mony Mony" by Billy Idol) were consecutive number-one hits in 1987. is not a milestone worthy of recognition. I commend Ericorbit for having removed this material from the parent article, but he should have stopped there.—Kww(talk) 12:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

comment for the record, when I spun the article off, it was quite a bit shorter. It's not the easiest article to keep "pruned", as stuff gets added constantly  :-) - eo (talk) 12:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment→ again, Kww, we could simply clean up the article, remove the excess, and source it. Orane (talk) 14:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that these articles are trivia magnets. There are only a few statistics worth keeping, and, properly pruned and trimmed, a discussion of them can be kept in a parent article. Splitting them out invites uncontrollable growth.—Kww(talk) 14:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

comment, well, again, if the consensus is to keep this article, I will be more than happy to work with whomever to decide which of the billion items should stay or go. I remove stuff a lot which many times leads to "why did you delete my item?" conversations, but if more than one person was keeping an eye on preventing it from becoming excessive, it would really help. - eo (talk) 18:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment — I agree; this article can be maintained in the public interest through patrol and discussion on which items are notable and which can be removed per non-notability. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)]] (P.S. added on July 1 — eo and a few others have done a good job of patrol).

• Keep This is of encyclopedic interest, and not really a candidate for merging back to the article about the Billboard Hot 100 in general; in addition, the article cites to verifiable sources (such as Joel Whitburn's well-known books). Although a page dealing with the 40 or so songs that had been #1 on the Pop 100 is up for deletion, this article bears no resemblance to that piece of crap. Mandsford (talk) 12:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete all - indiscriminate trivia, laundry lists, many entries unreferenced thus notability not established. Artyline (talk) 12:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Struck comments of banned user. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This is useful information and like the other articles about artists' charts and statistics, should remain.--Don1962 (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Per eo, this should probably be in the Hot 100 page, but cant due to length.--CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 20:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep — Entries are referenced; note that at the bottom of article there is a bibiliography (which is used for items without inline citations); several items have inline citations. Article's edit page also has hidden note discouraging "indiscriminiate trivia" (e.g., miniscule trivia, e.g., the back-to-back No. 1 covers of the Tommy James songs in the Hot 100 stats article); patrol can be used to expunge inappropriate items. I would be open to conversations about improving this article (along with the afd nominator), which I think should happen before further afd discussion should the article be kept. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)]]
• Delete This is just a bunch of trivial information throw together. I dont think we should be tracking the movement of every album on a music chart. Bunch of a trivia suited for a site other than an encyclopedia Corpx (talk) 05:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment — This article does not nor never did "track the movement of every album on a music chart" (which indeed would be suited for a totally different site, such as Billboard). On the contrary, these articles — at least the country version — has records information organized by artist accomplishments, song accomplishments and album accomplishments ... not merely information randomly thrown together at one's whim but an article that is presented in a readable, easy-to-follow article with truly notable records and each having standards for their inclusion. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 16:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)]]

That's the thing. The inclusion criteria is so arbitrary that an endless number of "achievements" could be added to this page, which results in a bunch of trivial information all in one page. I think some of the categories could be made into a new page, if sufficient notability is established, but I'm against throwing together a bunch of trivial chart movements into a page and labeling it as "achievements" Corpx (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Corpx — While I would argue that most of the accomplishments are noteworthy, patrol can be used to eliminate those that don't meet notability muster. Still, if the article is kept (either through concensus or by default (due to a "no concensus" verdict), and remember, we're not at that point yet), would you be willing to assist with a general cleanup of the page and share your thoughts as to which "achievements" are notable and which aren't? (Remember also, this page is tagged for rescue.) [[Briguy52748 (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)]]

Ha, I'd doubt he, or the nominator of this AFD, would be willing to. Nowadays, editors are more interested in deleting a page, rather than working on it — which, if you think about it, makes template signs like {{clean up}}, {{unreferenced}} or {{notability}} obsolete. Corpx suggests that such lists of chart movements are non-notable and unsuitable for an encyclopedia. But I don't understand why everyone is against music statistics, while articles/lists about sports (NFL and NBA) statistics are celebrated, even featured. I know WP:WAX may apply here, but I still have to emphasize the bias against music-related articles. Orane (talk) 21:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This really isn't the best attitude to be taking, Ozone; saying we're biased just because we don't agree with your point of view. While I still stand by my vote, it looks like this will end up being "no consensus" anyway. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 08:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It's "Orane", not "Ozone". And I'm not saying that you guys are biased because you don't agree with me. I'm saying that people may be biased because they cite all music/chart statistics as "laundry lists" and "indiscriminate trivia", while sports stats are treasured. Orane (talk) 05:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

WOULD YOU IDIOTS LISTEN TO YOURSELVES? Think about what you are saying. First off implying that Wikipedia is anything but a guilty pleasure is stupid. This place is NOT I repeat NOT at all credible as a source for information. It is not like an actual encyclopedia in its authenticity. Second, lists and facts aren't useful at all, it's true. Sorry. But they should be kept because they are one of the biggest reasons people go on this stupid site in the first place. Oh, look, such and such a show made a reference to something but I can't quite figure out what... It used to be on this site until some self righteous jackass decided to delete it. Those factoids and interesting tidbits aren't useful but they are entertaining and do educate on a minor level. Are you going to just blindly say that knowing something about a current trend or an old movie or interesting factoid is more useless than a large page on some WWI (Look it up but that's world war one in case that page was deleted for all you kiddies) general that NOBODY remembers? In all honesty everybody who follows the trivia rule to such an extensive length needs to be forced into surgery to have a sense of humor installed (irony, see WWI directions)If visitations to Wikipedia begin to fall off it will probably be due to the widespread deletion of the interesting factoids. Like how YouTube has a lot of people leaving because of all the deletions music videos and files. If you take way what people like then ALL that you are doing is hurting the site. Stop pretending that being an edit Nazi is a good thing. It isn't. All you are is annoying and you should really consider shoving your computer out of a window and spending some time, a very long time for some of you, away from it until your douchiness is gone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.77.146 (talk) 12:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

IP user 98.246.77.146 — You may want to read the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions article; while I understand you are frustrated, I seriously doubt your comments add anything constructive to this discussion. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 14:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)]]

I disagree, while he lost me at the word Nazi, I thought everything leading up to it was one of the best synopsis of the inclusionist argument I've read, and I'm serious. IP, don't worry, this is clearly heading to a no consensus, defaulting to keep. BTdubs, WP:AADD is an essay, not a policy.--CastAStone/^{/₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€} 14:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

CastAStone — Remember, I voted to keep (and my opinion hasn't changed); I was just concerned about the IP contributor's tone and that his argument was more emotional based rather than a legit reason to keep, which is exactly what the essay in question is about; and yes, I understand that said essay is NOT policy. His argument about people no longer using this site because "X" article (or series of) were deleted could be better stated in an essay that is not connected to a specific afd discussion. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 15:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)]]

• Strong Keep Other than noting that absolutely nothing about this article's status has changed since its nomination for deletion failed last year, I'll repeat the post I made in the previous discussion:

The long history of "chart-watching" is a central part of Billboard Magazine's purpose and appeal. This history is reflected in a succession of encyclopedic books devoted to the topic, which have been published and updated for more than three decades (see: http://www.recordresearch.com/), as well as popular countdown shows from "Your Hit Parade" to Casey Kasem. The [then-]recent news coverage of Kanye West vs. 50 Cent "showdown" over whose album would debut at #1 indicates that this general interest in "chart achievements and trivia" continues. Artists such as Mariah Carey and The Beatles have released best-selling compilation albums whose contents are entirely based on the types of statistical accomplishments archived on this page. Numerous topics such as the Academy Awards, baseball, and television ratings have separate and subsidiary "list"-style pages on Wikipedia (i.e. [[1]]; [[2]]; [[3]]). This article is well in keeping with those, and others.One Sweet Edit (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep – These chart achievements are not of interest solely to Joel Whitburn. His compilations has been noted and referenced in such books as Interpreting popular music by David Brackett (p. 35), The new blue music by Richard J. Ripani (p. 14), Popular music since 1955 by Paul Taylor (p. 45), Hit records, 1950–1975 by David F. Lonergan (p. vi), The seventh stream: the emergence of rock n roll in American popular music‎ by Philip H. Ennis (p. 404), and so on... Multiple third-party sources demonstrate sufficient notability. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of films which share their name with a title of a song

List of films which share their name with a title of a song (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. This is an indiscriminate list which would, if complete, be very, very long, and with very little value. There is no clear link between the films listed: some are films by or about bands, where the song is by the same band. Other ones will be songs named after a movie (e.g. Breakfast at Tiffany's), movies named after songs (less frequent), movies and songs both named after a book, comic, event, ... (e.g. Wuthering Heights, Titanic, ), and movies and songs which share a title completely by accident (Scream, She, Iris, Beat it, ...). The inclusion criteria are thus way too broad, making the end result meaningless. It does not highlight a particular topic (which e.g. a list of films based on comics does), trend, or exceptional circumstance. Fram (talk) 09:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment  : I guess at issue here is utility or "contrived" rather than indiscriminate. The ability to make these ad hoc lists with automated tools however is almost a holy grail for some search researchers, and even more interesting would be "films that are not also songs". You see selection bias or confirmation bias in science quite often and having various lists of counter-examples or alternatives could be helpful and in fact the mere act of producing some lists can generate perspective and insights for the author. Viewed as fact finding, and helping play " one of these things is not like the other" from Sesame Street, lists can be helpful and while requring "research" effort to compile don't normally constitute OR as defined here. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • But then basically you have two lists, films which share their name with a song, and films that don't, totalling all films. Not really workable, and not very discriminate either. "Useful" is not an argument to keep anything, and I don't really see in what way it helps to know that there is a film and a song called Supernova, and the same goes for Fever, and the same goes for Firestarter, and for Endless love. How useful it is to have on one list the three movies and 20-odd songs all titled Alive? Fram (talk) 11:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Comment I think the nom is really objecting to the over-inclusiveness of this list. If it were better organised, perhaps it could be saved? There is an interesting tradition of films taking their title, and sometimes their story, from songs: Sea of Love, Alexander's Ragtime Band, La Marseillaise, My Blue Heaven, The Butterfly Ball...Rhinoracer (talk) 12:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Such a list with largely different contents and obviously a different name may be acceptable, but then again, it has little or nothing to do with this AfD anymore. Fram (talk) 12:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete and they didn't even spell Mamma Mia correctly. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. The criteria for inclusion in this list are way too broad. Wikipedia does not need to contain every possible organization of data. Powers ^T 13:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Fram sums it up pretty well. Although it's possible that someone might add some narrative to make this article sound intelligent, this is trivia that would be useful only during a long car trip. No doubt there are some interesting stories behind these, but nothing that can't be mentioned in the article about the song or the film. Mandsford (talk) 13:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:IINFO, as interpreted in WP:SALAT. Deor (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - overly broad listcruft. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Trivial in nature. Jrcla2 15:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Question - why is this trivial? If you had to make a list, for whatever contrived reason, how would you do it? This is less trivial than making a list of insurance companies. Here, you need to make two lists and compare them. It may be silly but it isn't trivial. I'm grinding my "curated lists in the post tree killing era" axe again, since I can't cut down trees with it :) Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It is trivial as there is no context, on the contrary a list of insurance companies would be a content fork from the article insurance companies. This list is poorly defined, for example the film Scream is unrelated to the song Scream, My Blue Heaven takes its title from the song but the plot is a sequel to Goodfellas (seriously its based on Henry Hill's life). What importance does the song play to the film? American Werewolf in London has many "moon" related songs (but not the Warren Zevon song Werewolves of London?) in it, there is no clearly defined criterion, therefore it is trivia. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I also agree with Mandsford — this kind of trivia is for a game, not Wikipedia. Yoninah (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Trivial listcruft, whether it kills trees or not. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete under WP:IINFO. Interesting trivia, but not productive for wikipedia.--Junius49 (talk) 01:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of hospitals in Indonesia

List of hospitals in Indonesia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate list as per WP:NOT#DIR Davidelit (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete as per talk page of article (or re-naming as List of hospitals in Aceh if reasonable WP:RS can be found to support such a list)- it is a non notable list of hospitals in Aceh and does not provide any context of the health system in Indonesia or discriminate or describe the the different private hosptials and government hospitals - the only hospitals with articles in the Indonesian project (ie categorised as hospitals in Indonesia) are 2 private hospitals in Yogyakarta - hardly a representative collection of articles to link from at all. Better served by a creation of separate lists or articles by Island (the List of hospitals in Bali could serve as a good example if it had either WP:RS or WP:V - of which it has neither SatuSuro 15:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —SatuSuro 15:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix |  Talk  16:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - The concept of hospitals in a given area of sufficient size is notable (and Wikipedia has many such lists). Individual hospitals don't have to be notable to appear on a list of hospitals. The list is not indiscriminate because it a well-defined scope. I do understand that the list is very incomplete as it currently stands, but that is a problem that can be fixed through editing. I wouldn't object to the list being renamed to reflect the current content, "List of hospitals in Aceh", but editing the list to include hospitals form other areas of the country is the preferable solution in my opinion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - Point taken, but Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is a good guide here Davidelit (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Correct, but I am not arguing for inclusion based on the other stuff. I am arguing for inclusion based on the notability of such list and merely pointing out the list lists as an aside. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment many lists in the Indonesian projects have been 'dropped in' by editors never seen again - and as a consequence they are always problematic - I would say that 'List of hospitals in Indonesia' becomes either a disambig or redirect - and that List of Hospitals in Aceh, or Bali or wherever are kept in the loop only if reliable sources are utilised - otherwise I believe they should be up for AFD - I do not think that such lists have any right to exist - there is nothing to check against - if there has been no attempt at verification by WP:RS - they are open to random and false information otherwise SatuSuro 05:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Provides no encyclopedic information. When I need a hospital in Indonesia, I won't be consulting wikipedia. If we do get articles on Indonesian hospitals, then we use categories instead.--Merbabu (talk) 07:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  06:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per Merbabu, because we can always use categories if needed.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 10:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
• Move to List of hospitals in Aceh. Verifiable info; reasonable notability. - Altenmann >t 15:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)