Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nine Inch Nails covers

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. D e ath phoenix 05:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nine Inch Nails covers[edit]

List serves no real purpose. Is listcruft. Also, seem to be original research as no references are provided. Localzuk ^(talk) 15:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, shows how NIN has influenced other bands and vice versa. Kappa 17:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kappa. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 17:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - How does it show other bands that have been influenced by NIN? I am a big fan of NIN myself but providing a huge list of songs that have been covered does not have any encyclopedic value. -Localzuk ^(talk) 20:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I think the list is probably entirely verifiable, but does strike me as listcruft that is maybe better addressed on NIN fanpages (and I am a fan) and places like [Covers Project] which is much more thorough. That said, WP also a List of notable cover versions, List of songs covered by the band Pearl Jam, and List of songs covered by Dream Theater. Policy on this could use further explanation. Schizombie 19:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The above lists you quote are a much better set than the AFD'd one. They provide lists of songs covered *by* a specific band rather than bands that have covered a song. The information included in this list should be in the articles about those bands and any specifically notable ones included in the NIN article itself. -Localzuk ^(talk) 20:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ to Nine Inch Nails. No reason for more lists to spawn pertaining to songs written by a band and covered by another, or songs a band has covered that were written by someone else.--Isotope23 20:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rynne.--Isotope23 17:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~, per Schizombie. As it is, this seems like listcruft, especially since a large part of the list is just the tracklistings of four or five tribute albums—I think if the albums themselves aren't notable enough to have their own pages, they shouldn't be included in their entirety here. - Rynne 21:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. After more research, I'm strengthing my vote. As per my comment to Mecanismo, the relevant information is already merged into the articles of individual NIN recordings. Furthermore, almost every link to the list comes from these NIN articles, meaning that the list is redundant. -- Rynne 16:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge.~~ There is really one basic issue here, and it is listcruft. If there is any notability to the elements of this list, the NIN article itself should be able to reveal it. Also, what importance does this list have? Cdcon 22:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Change vote to Delete. Rynne informs me that all the information in the list is included elsewhere in Wikipedia. Cdcon 16:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant information, delete article. listcruft --Mecanismo | Talk 23:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. A lot of the relevant information here is already available elsewhere. Most of the covers are already listed on the respective release pages (see section "The Song" in Down In It, Head Like a Hole, Sin, etc.). The main issue that's being brought up is whether the list itself is relevent, and I don't see how merging it into Nine Inch Nails or any other article addresses that. - Rynne 15:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, you are right. It seems that the information available at the AFD is already covered and easily accessible. The reason why I explicitly voted "merge and delee" was that I find the information valid but the article is redundant. So, if all information is already listed in other NIN-related articles, then this AFD obviously should be deleted. --Mecanismo | Talk 17:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a redundant list. Stifle 13:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nice to have everything in one place. Redundancy is good. Grue 18:21, 25 February 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.