Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs containing the I–V–vi–IV progression

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 merge to I–V–vi–IV progression. And the suggestion of a category sounds like a great idea. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs containing the I–V–vi–IV progression

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:LISTN. I don't see any such list "in the wild" (at least in reputable places). Clarityfiend (talk) 05:45, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:07, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:07, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cruft at its worst. It's just a list of song, with no context of why this is important. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:16, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Cruft, original research and sources are only available via a paywall. Ajf773 (talk) 09:36, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What? This is a pretty bizarre list. ~~Delete~~. Foxnpichu (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Going back to Delete. Sorry for constantly changing my mind, but this is a tough one. Foxnpichu (talk) 20:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the vvi progression (or what have you) article, mention a few songs there. A list of things that the average joe wouldn't understand. Oaktree b (talk)
- Which page is this, out of curiosity? Foxnpichu (talk) 23:31, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I–V–vi–IV progression and also '50s progression. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Very well. I suppose I will also change my !vote to ~~Merge~~ inline with what you said. Foxnpichu (talk) 18:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NLIST. Too much WP:OR / unsourced material here for a good merge and it would lack the information about why this is significant per Lugnuts. But if someone really wanted to work on it, they should ask that it be drafted to their userspace. // Timothy :: talk 14:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Would a simple Draft namescape work? Foxnpichu (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Probably not, there's no real significance in having such a list, or valid reason for why it would be useful. Aza24 (talk) 19:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a trivial and ridiculous list, all OR. Aza24 (talk) 19:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I myself have been a big contributor to this list, but I may now consider not having this list. Merge with main article, shorten the list, and listen to the actual songs (as I do) to determine whether these contain the progression. On another note, I'd like to request a copy of the article for personal purposes should it be deleted. Caehlla (talk) 13:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So some people say Delete, and some say Merge? Honestly, I’d be fine with either, really. Foxnpichu (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with a category, like "Category:Songs containing the I–V-vi-IV progression", or something along those lines.
Merge back into I–V–vi–IV progression which is not that long and can handle the list. I have no bone in this debate, but I find many of the delete calls to be ill-formed. Adding list items to a stand-alone list is not original research so long as it's verifiable by persons who are familiar with the topic, not every item needs a reference. Stand-alone lists must pass GNG, though, and this list does not pass GNG, so that's a plus for deletion. However, there is a perfectly valid redirect target and per deletion nomination standards, that should have been the first option. Sources hidden behind a paywall is completely irrelevant, I'm not sure why anyone would mention that as a reason for deletion. A list is allowed to be "bizarre" for someone who is not familiar with the topic. Merging it back into the progression article would make it pretty obvious why they are important to the topic, and calling it trivial and ridiculous is a bit over the top, we have plenty of trivial lists on Wikipedia (but this list isn't trivial, there is an article on the progression and then a list of songs that use that progression, not trivial, not ridiculous). These are all horrible argument for deletion. I think the article should be merged as it is a valid target and that's what policy says we should do in this circumstance. Footlessmouse (talk) 19:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE - when I looked at the title, I thought of the choruses to "Don't Stop Believin'" and "Torn", neither of which are in the article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note, just to cite policy WP:BEFORE: "If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider merging or redirecting to an existing article" there couldn't be more clear targets for merging, in line with MOS:TIMELINE. In case this is ignored and the article is deleted, I would recommend to anyone who cares for the lists to help finish adding all the songs to [[Category:Songs containing the I–V-vi-IV progression]] and start another for the other article. Even if this(these) article(s) is(are) deleted, there is no policy that says that notable items with references cannot be added into a shorter list in the parent articles, though there would be no redirect and history would be erased. From my POV they could not be more relevant to the parent articles, providing examples of the music discussed there. Also, the list failing comprehensiveness is certainly not a reason to delete and indiscriminate is open for debate, given they are stand alone lists with parent articles. Footlessmouse (talk) 11:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above discussion, enough said. Bearian (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:INDISCRIMINATE list with nothing significant to have an indepedent article. --KartikeyaS (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2020 (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.