Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs over fifteen minutes in length (second nomination)

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 delete. - Bobet 00:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs over fifteen minutes in length[edit]

List of songs over fifteen minutes in length was nominated for deletion on 2005-11-16. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs over fifteen minutes in length.

Listcruft fails WP:NOT, has no place in an encyclopedia, take it to Creem or Tiger Beat L0b0t 14:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per my nomination. L0b0t 14:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE per nomJoshTyler 14:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unmaintainable, WP:NOT, etc. It doesn't even conform to its own inclusion criteria--says no classical or instrumental tracks yet includes Phillip Glass and Jean Michel Jarre, says no live tracks but includes several by King Crimson and by others I'm sure. ergot 15:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this is maintainable and encyclopedic: there can't be THAT many songs. The article should just define itself as a list of popular music songs, to make it clear that, say, operas don't count. Mango juice^talk 16:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --164.107.92.120 16:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this continues to be an embarrassment, it continues to fail to conform to its own inclusion criterea - it is just full of lists of 78 minute ambient drone fests and such like, not *SONGS*. It is not notable in any way for an ambient piece of instrumental music to be over 15 minutes in length. All previous votes for deletion with-held the executioner's noose on the ground the the article would be pruned of all this crap. It never has been, and the editors who voted for retention and pledged to clean it up reneged on their words.--feline1 16:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Kf4bdy ^talk ^contribs 17:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - my continuing problem with this article is in its definition of "song" and the seemingly arbitrary choice of 15 minutes as a cut-off. The inherent musical snobbery against anything other than prog-rock (seemingly) make the article inherently POV and I don't see what's so special about being unable to stop playing after a period of time most would find reasonable has lapsed. I remain neutral on the article's fate as there is a signifiant number of contributors which suggests that it is considered useful by a large number of editors. Ac@osr 17:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point of fact: the article does NOT give its own definition of a song - it simply refers to the pre-existing wikipedia song article. I would also submit that your argument about "a siginificant number of 'editors' find it useful" is fallacious - rather, a significant number of 14 year old boys keep adding their favourite doom metal songs to the list, etc etc - this is not "using" the article (as a source of info), it is just cluttering it with people's personal graffitti. PS - Ac@osr wiki page virtually reads like a fancruft manifesto. A vote which clearly contradicts the spirit of wikipedia policies is not a valid vote!--feline1 17:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- ~~Why are you so upset about a neutral vote?~~ Forget it, I've just been looking through the edit history of the page in question and I've worked it out....Ac@osr 19:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tricky. The very-long-song is an encyclopaedic subject, in that it has an impact on airplay and so on. On the other hand, but it was common in the days of prog rock and some ambient and new age acts simply roll all the CD into a single track (a.k.a. "78 minute ambient drone fests" as so eloquently put above). Even though I do admire Brian Eno. Also the list seems to exclude classical songs and includes any popular ~~guitar wank~~ instrumental with vocal interludes, which displays systemic bias; how would one characterise, say, Peter Warlock's The Curlew (22:02 in one of my recordings)? What of songs whose duration varies per performance, as almost all classical music will? Are there secondary sources or are all the timings form record sleeves (i.e. original research)? What about songs without words? Do we count Mendelssohn's lieder ohne wörte? I'm strongly inclined to delete unless we can find a credible way of neutralising what is, put charitably, systemic bias (i.e. teenage fandom) and preferably pruning the list below its current one thousand entries (count 'em!) while still including well-known classical songs of unusual length. As to many editors proving usefulness, I disagree. It proves to me only that many bands' fans see yet another opportunity to add a reference to their band's name. Guy 17:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unmaintainable, arbitrary list.--Hús ö nd 17:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 15 minutes is an arbitrary number, making this an ill-defined list. Unless someone can redefine "long" and come up with alternative criteria that doesn't give this list thousands of entries, its not very useful. Wickethewok 20:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite amazingly convincing argument of 164.107.92.120. I pretty much agree with JzG's points, and err on the side of delete. Danny Lilithborne 20:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wickethewok -- lucasbfr ^talk 23:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per feline1 and JzG. Andrew Levine 00:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Arbusto 00:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above 4.18GB 00:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per excellent arguments above. I think the fatal flaw is the arbitrariness of 15 minutes. If the number had some particular significance within the music industry, it would be different. -Kubigula (ave) 04:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I just don't see how this can ever be a definable category - and it seems this article has struggled with that since inception. Despairing of any hope for identifiable standards, I must say delete. --TheOtherBob 06:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the reasons that its pointless, discriminatory towards rock epics (not necessarily operas) with no lyrics, and the rule of 15 minutes minimum makes no sense. Woody1003 22:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! Wikipedia has been delte happy as of late and I fear that many contributor's hard work will discourage participants and will detract from our ability to catalog human knowledge, the purpose of an encyclopedia. Cheers, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 02:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd question that any "hard work" has gone into people's contributions to this list: it is not as if anyone has written any carefully thought out text for it. In fact, it's not as if they've bother to read the rules for inclusion either - rather, they've just stuck in some random long track from their fave band. If anything, I think the argument bites the other way: it is discouraging for responsible wiki-editors to continually have to try and clean up crap like this. I've lost count of the number of times I've had to delete stuff which doesn't fit the rules for inclusion, only to come along again a few weeks later and see some twit has put it back in again.--feline1 12:22, 6 November 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.