Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series

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 keep per the snowball clause. MuZemike 21:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2007 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series

2007 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:DIRECTORY seems to apply here. Listcruft could also apply, as well as WP:NOTGUIDE. In any event, this is something not suited for Wikipedia but for a game guide site. ArcAngel (talk) 01:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Songs from both the Guitar Hero and Rock Band series have been noted to gain attention after their inclusion in these games (see Cultural impact of the Guitar Hero series). Tracking these songs per this reason is not a directory issue even if the information is available elsewhere. --MASEM (t) 02:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Numerous precedent exists for articles of this type, see Category:Music video game soundtracks. This information is notable, encyclopedic, and well-referenced. Song lists for music games are equally notable to a track listing on a musical album article. The idea that these lists are cruft is equally absurd, as reliable sources such as OXM and IGN review the releases nearly every week. Oren0 (talk) 02:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Many people tend to find a list of songs for games like these to gather information on the game. These pages provide an organized layout for the very numerous songs released for this game. And it most certainly meets Notability.--猛禽22 ^•• 02:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per Oren0. Well sourced and commonplace. _Met^ty 04:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per Oren0. This is no different than a track listing for an album, the listing is part of why the game is notable, and having a separate article allows not having a giant table in the main article. None of the categories under WP:NOTDIRECTORY apply to this article, and it tells what the game content is, not how to finish the game (as a guide would). PaulGS (talk) 08:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, seems like a sensible way to handle this type of content. Song selection is pretty fundamental to the games so song lists would seem to be analogous to character lists in other genres. Guest9999 (talk) 15:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per comments on similar AFD. --Taelus (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The list is not a directory, nor cruft, nor a guide, bt a perfectly valid list, and thus none of the reasons provided for deletion in the nomination are valid. Rlendog (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per my statements here. I would encourage any further discussion to continue in the "main" AfD for the all encompassing table. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 14:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per WP:SNOW and WP:ITSCRUFT. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the notability of this data is not clear. The sources cited in the article (3 at the last count) are from Questionable sources, namely fansite forums, or they merely reguritate press releases. Since here is no significant coverage from sources which are both reliable and independent, this article reads like a product guide rather than an encylopedic article. This article might make a useful FAQ on a fansite, but this syntheis of sources is not appropriate for Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • These contents can unequivically be sourced through reliable sources, i.e. published magazines, and as such is beyond appropriate for the paperless encyclopedia anyone can edit. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 13:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I don't understand the synthesis comment. Using multiple sources does not violate WP:SYNTH and I am not seeing the sources synthesized in an inapprorpiate manner. Rlendog (talk) 19:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per my comments in the related AFD discussions. Dugwiki (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Entirely encyclopedic material that is large enough to merit splitting off from the parent article, not to mention well-presented and verified. Chubbles (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.