Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Paramore

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. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 08:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Paramore[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN and WP:NOTDIR. Effectively duplicates the purpose of Paramore discography. James (^talk/_contribs) 21:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But there is not a list of songs on the discography page, only singles.Drinkdrinker (talk) 09:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nor should there be. Again, see NOTDIR. James (^talk/_contribs) 17:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this is a separate list from the Paramore discography list as it covers every single song recorded by the band. This is a rather standard list, with many examples here. Here are some featured lists that follow this format for clearer examples: 1, 2, 3. Again, this is a rather standard practice so I am not sure about the validity of the nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As far as I know, I don't believe the music-related WikiProjects have ever come to an agreement on when a "List of song" type article is appropriate. It's generally considered acceptable with artists with a large percentage of notable songs, (like List of Beatles songs), and generally unacceptable if an artist has virtually no notable songs, but there's no real objective metric for the majority of scenarios. Just an FYI. I'm neutral, for this reason. Sergecross73 msg me 13:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comment; it would seem appropriate in this case as this band has released songs that pass Wikipedia's policies and standards on notability (i.e. significant coverage from reliable, third-party sources and appearing on notable music charts) so I do not fully understand how this list would not be just as appropriate as the other "List of songs recorded by X". Aoba47 (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem keeping this one, I just wish we had a more clear way of saying "this example is okay, but this other one is not." I've started a discussion on it here at WikiProject Songs, if you or anyone else have any thoughts you'd like to share on it. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 17:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. I agree with your point completely as it is always good to get additional feedback on a point, especially since it is confusing on what qualifies as an acceptable list versus one that is unacceptable. Aoba47 (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. LISTN requires significant coverage of the list members as a group, simply requiring coverage of individual group members is not enough. James (^talk/_contribs) 18:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@James Allison: I would have to respectfully disagree with you on that point, but I believe that this discussion is better situated at the WikiProject for songs as this goes beyond only this list as it appears you do not believe there should be "Songs recorded by X" list (to the best of my knowledge so feel free to correct me) so that is something more to figure out from a more discussion rather than pointing out one example of this list from the several pre-existing ones. For instance, what is your opinion about these types of lists that have been promoted to FL status? How is this list different from those (in terms of notability) or how is this different from any other pre-existing lists like this? I respect that you are raising this discussion but, I am still not fully understanding the point you are trying to make here. The list in this instance is talking about all of the songs recorded by this band under the umbrella of a single list or "group", as done for other bands/groups/artists like Faith No More and Pink Martini. I would greatly appreciate a more fleshed-out response for this particular case rather than pointing back to LISTN repeatedly. I will probably stay out of the rest of the discussion here to allow other users to decide about this, but I think a longer response from you about the points raised here would be helpful to reaching a better understanding. Aoba47 (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By group or set, I am referring to the members of the list as a whole: in this case, the set of Paramore songs as a whole. There has been no significant coverage of all of the songs released by this band as a whole. Contrast this to the sources used in List of Beatles songs; there you can clearly see there has been significant coverage in third party sources of the songs as a whole. I do not object to the inherent existence of "List of songs by X" articles. While discussion on a WikiProject could be helpful, I am wary of a local consensus forming that may contradict LISTN. James (^talk/_contribs) 19:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. I would just like to clarify that there are plenty of instances in which these types of lists do not have sources that cover all of the material released by an artist in their entirety in a single discussion/resource. Actually, I have seen very few if any aside from the Beatles list that actually do that. The lists that I have linked previously in the discussion do not use sources in this manner for instance. Anyway, I will leave this up to more experience users to decide and discuss. I am keeping my "Keep" vote for this. I apologize for putting a lot of long responses on here; I also want to make sure that it is clear that I appreciate that you raised this for discussion and I was just trying to make sure that I fully understood your points. I greatly appreciate your responses as they allowed for a civil discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Aoba47's reasoning. Carbrera (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. AfD reason is not supported. These "lists of songs recorded" lists are commonplace on Wikipedia. Ajf773 (talk) 10:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article in question doesn't appear to fail LISTN - I don't find it to be a plausible assertion that a multi-platinum selling band doesn't have the bare minimum of RS coverage required on the one thing they do - make songs. I do hope that the WikiProject can come up with some guidelines on how/when articles like this should be created, but until that day occurs, I can't support its deletion. Sergecross73 msg me 19:25, 9 May 2017 (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.