Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shakira remixography

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 of the debate was delete both. --Ezeu 07:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also nominating List of remixes of Britney Spears songs. Per previous discussions (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Remixes of Beyonce Songs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kelly Clarkson Remixes, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mariah Carey remixes etc.), these lists of remixes (some of which are unofficial and/or non-notable) contravene WP:NOT. Extraordinary Machine 01:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as listcruft--TBCTaLk?!? 01:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, textbook listcruft. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Coredesat talk 04:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete opens the door for an unmanageable, unverifiable, ever-expanding list. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 07:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete listcruft. Wikibout-Talk to me! 18:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all listcruft. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 21:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I've just found Madonna remixography and Spice girls remixography, and have tagged them for deletion as well. Extraordinary Machine 01:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as listcruft --Starionwolf 03:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Why exactly are these aricles for deletion? I have devoted much time and effort into keeping Madonna's remixography 100% accurate. It is a useful resource and many people ask for this. It is a full and easy to understand list. Please explain to me why it, and the rest of these pages, need to be deleted. Someone explain. Thanks.--User:BertrandJP90 on 21:22, 28 June 2006
  • Upon further inspection, the Spice Girls one seems perfectly accurate as well, and that one won't change or need updates for obvious reasons. The Shakira one however, is falling behind on updates and is poorly formatted. That one should be cleaned up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.202.175.249 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 29 June 2006.
    • Sorry, the above comment was mine (BertrandJP90)
  • I think a very good point somebody raised on one of the other AFDs is that a separate list of remixes presents little context for the reader. They'd have to visit the song articles to see which of these remixes are significant (and not all of them are), and really only somebody very familiar with Madonna's discography would make immediate sense of it. So it would be more useful to include info on and discuss a song's remixes in an article for the song. Extraordinary Machine 20:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete listcruftastic. --moof 08:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I've spent time making sure this is accurate (getting references from DJs, etc...) and fans appreciate that...I don't think it should be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.70.153.216 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 29 June 2006.
  • Please see Wikipedia:No original research. Also, casual readers of this website should be kept in mind when contributing to articles, and not just groups who already have an interest in the subject. I'm not trying to demean your efforts, but I think these lists are more suited to a Britney Spears/Shakira/whoever wiki at Wikia or somewhere. Extraordinary Machine 20:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Articles like this are a valuable resource. The Madonna one is the most accurate listing of all her songs and remixes available on the internet and I reference it almost daily. I don't understand what sort of rule it is breaking that people want it deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Minusthesnake (talk • contribs) 19:35, 29 June 2006.
  • User's first edit. The policy people think these lists are contravening is "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Extraordinary Machine 20:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment How is this an indiscriminate source of information? Anyways, how does wikia work? What's the difference? Maybe we could reach a compromise. You could probably argue these points to two thirds of the articles here anyway. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.202.175.249 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 30 June 2006.
  • WP:NOT states that Wikipedia articles are not "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". Wikia has wikis on lots of different topics, and they allow a higher level of detail than would be appropriate in an encyclopedia. I think a useful compromise for other readers would be to list and discuss the most notable remixes in the song articles rather than a context-less list. Extraordinary Machine 14:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point of this is that fans have a FULL list to reference and update with any new finds or corrections. Anyways, I'll move it to wikia if someone explains how that works. I looked at it and it seems I have to apply for something?
• Keep. 72.130.198.232 08:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any particular reason? Extraordinary Machine 14:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Discography articles are enough; we don't need additional remixography articles for every artist. --Musicpvm 08:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• It looks like this will be deleted. Can anyone suggest other similar places I can keep this? I don't mind removing it from here, but I want to keep this up somewhere, as I worked very hard on it, and many people from fan communities find this very useful. If it doesn't fit into the wikipedia, where does it fit? -BertrandJP90
  • If you want to you could set up a Madonna wiki at Wikia, and people from the fan communities could contribute to it (as well as other Madonnna-related topics that may not be notable enough to warrant Wikipedia articles, such as her album tracks) there. Extraordinary Machine 14:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per nomination. — Tapir Terrific 16:39, 5 July 2006 (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.