List of unreleased Britney Spears songs – "No Consensus" closure Endorsed. – Eluchil404 (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of unreleased Britney Spears songs (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) This closure was in error because it ignored the consensus that the topic carries no notability or relevance for an encyclopaedia. Seven editors were in favor of deleting the article, whereas only two editors !voted keep—and while Afd is WP:NOTAVOTE, numbers aren't meaningless. The administrator's closing comment amounted to "This is a very well sourced list, and a featured list", which is not precedent of a topic being notable. Till 05:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Hello friends, I am the admin who closed it. I stand behind my close. I felt that the headcount was not overwhelming and that the arguments of the delete side were weaker. -- Y not? 15:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Keep. Well sourced (unlike similar lists deleted) and an appropriate spin out from Britney Spears discography, itself an appropriate spinout from Britney Spears. Endorse, reasonable close, ~~although someone else might have called~~ "no consensus". Read Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion and consider relisting at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Why did you place a 'keep' vote above? Per WP:DRV, "...Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question." Till 09:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Call it a declaration of my immediate gut reaction to the list-article and AfD nomination, if you like. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] I don't endorse the close, but seriously, just renominate it if you want to see it deleted. How this got to FL is beyond me. --Claritas § 09:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] The last time I did that, I received a bunch of abusive and unnecessary comments from people who wanted the article kept. Till 09:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - policy goes one way, head count goes the other; a perfectly reasonable no consensus. Wily D 10:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Where is the policy? All I see is 'This is a featured list and should be kept'. It is not uncommon for Featured articles/lists and GAs to be deleted. See this for the most recent example. Till 11:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] I would also like to know what particular policy the deletion of this article would contravene. This is basically a case of WP:NOTTRIVIA. Claritas § 11:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] It appears to meet WP:N, and there's no argument to be made that it runs afoul of the various WP:NOT. I seem them wikilinked, but nobody makes an argument (presumably because it's impossible, and the delete argument is WP:IDONTLIKEIT). Wily D 10:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] The closing administrator made no mention about the list meeting WP:N. He noted that it was a Featured list and that the content is "high quality", which is not really a reason to keep an article. Till 21:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. "No consensus" was a perfectly reasonable reading of that discussion.—S Marshall T/C 12:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Hmm how so? Till 13:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. There was simply "No consensus". Statυs (talk) 13:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse though I would have !voted keep, as I can see no basis in policy for deletion. They seem to be of wide public and press interest. I note we include coverage of the lost works of J. S. Bach in the relevant articles, and we could perfectly well compile them as a separate list also; they too are discussed by multiple reliable sources,including the major music encyclopedia. That the sources in one case are academic and in the other case not, is irrelevant. It was noted in the AfD that similar lists for other musicians have been deleted, and perhaps those AfDs are the ones that should be reviewed here. (Some were appropriately deleted as having no sources) (As Wikipedian in Residence at the New York Public Library of the Performing Arts, I'm amazed at the number of full academic books, that I've been coming across there incidentally , even without specifically searching for them, for topics that have been rejected by WP as trivia or not meeting NLIST. I doubt I'll have time or interest to follow them all up, but I may put a bibliography in user or WP space of what I've been finding to help others.) DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] endorse No consensus seems like an accurate summary- there' some decent argument for keeping and a decent argument for deletion, and neither convinced that many people either way. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Process was followed. MBisanz ^talk 19:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] endorse verifiable material, neutrally presented, so no overriding policy reason for deletion. Notability remains in question, but there's certainly not a consensus that it fails that subjective bar.--Scott Mac 22:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Comment — there really isn't much high-quality content here. Most of the entries are sourced to the songwriting websites. While some are minor and trivial documents of a song being leaked. None of this content is notable, and this topic goes against Wikipedia's policy of WP:NOT. Till 23:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse I see no fault in the closer's result. Incidentally, the FL status is being discussed at Wikipedia:Featured_list_removal_candidates#List_of_unreleased_Britney_Spears_songs - if people feel this should be deleted, go there and get it de-listed, and then re-nominate it for deletion. FLs can be deleted, but as they have shown that they meet notability to get to FL (they would have been deleted before that), then it is harder to persuade people that they should be deleted. Although I am not personally in favour of such lists, this one meets the criteria for inclusion here from what I can see - it is well-sourced. If I was to be !voting at an AfD, I would have said to keep. In this case, there was not a consensus to delete, so I repeat that I endorse the closer's conclusion. PhantomSteve/talk\|contribs\ 10:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Oppose. The closing admin stated, "The result was No consensus to delete. This is a very well sourced list..." Unfortunately, these "well-sourced" lists include several WP:LINKVIO as references. BMI, copyright office and ASCAP are places where somebody in the Britney Spears camp have lodged a title, not necessarily an actual recording - released or otherwise. I am sure my points were clear in enough in the AfD. I have now pointed out that the closing admin didn't actually pay any attention to what those "well sourced" references were. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse – the individual items in the list are not notable (otherwise they would all have articles) but the list itself is notable. All we need is a source for each item (which does not have to be third party as no claim is being made for the notability of each item, and none of the items is in any way controversial). I am quite surprised that there is even a discussion about this manifestly excellent list (some people really don't like lists) and not surprised that it is featured. Oculi (talk) 11:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] Right...which is why it's already heading for a delist at WP:FLRC. Till 11:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] On spurious grounds. Oculi (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] What spurious grounds do you speak of? If you are talking about the article failing WP:V, I think I proved my point about that on the FLRC page. Till 00:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. A well-reasoned close. Far too many of the delete !votes focused on editors' opinions of what ought to be notable rather than actual notability guidelines. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] The keep !votes pointed to the list having FL status which isn't an actual notability guideline or a valid reason to keep an article. Till 10:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] And, even allowing your debatable point, predominantly lousy arguments on both sides would reasonably lead to a "no consensus" close. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] The delete !voters actually cited WP:NOT and highlighted the content in the article as not notable and unencyclopaedic. The fact that this list may have passed FL does not address the concerns with the article's notability, and nowhere did the closing administrator even mention these concerns in his closing comments. He also probably didn't even bother to take a look at the article, because almost a fifth of it fails verifiability, whereas he claimed it meets verifiability "with gusto". Till 13:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Weak endorse - I'm a little concerned that the "common outcomes" highlighted during the discussion were not addressed. It's not an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument to point out that many (if not most) other similar articles have been deleted or redirected. That said, many of those were on their second nomination and I don't suppose the closing admin (or anyone else for that matter) would have any great objection to this being nominated again in the future (especially since it was closed as no consensus). Could more have been done to explain how the closer came to their conclusion (given the number of votes and disparate arguments)? Sure, maybe. But on balance I don't think no consensus was so unreasonable a conclusion that it needs to be overturned. Stalwart111 04:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Thanks Stalwart111 for these comments. Yes, there was no need for a DR for a "no consensus," but having said that, I took both article and discussion off my watchlist because I thought deletion was a foregone conclusion. How wrong I was! The underlying problem with all these "lists of unreleased songs" is that the songs are NOT notable out of context and purely as a list - this is not to say that some can't be merged into the relevant albums and/or into a List of songs recorded by Britney Spears. The notability of unreleased songs is purely because of the artist i.e. inherited. You may take this as confirmation that I oppose all "list of unreleased" at the present time. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] I suppose I tend to see DRV mostly as a venue to review the close, rather than to "re-try" the original deletion nomination so I didn't comment on the merits of the article itself - just what I perhaps would like to have seen from the closer. At the end of the day, the result was "no consensus" and it looks like consensus here is that "no consensus" was reasonable. So the answer (to me) would be to leave it for a while and re-nominate. In my view, that would be the most appropriate way to "re-try" the AFD. Stalwart111 10:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Understood. As I said, I wouldn't have brought to DR, but now it's here...--Richhoncho (talk) 11:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] I recommend that you attempt to merge List of unreleased Britney Spears songs into Britney Spears discography before another attempt at deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Well, yeah, that might be a better first step. Stalwart111 10:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Except that a list of songs is specifically NOT a discography (some artists already have a discography and a list of songs). --Richhoncho (talk) 10:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Yeah, I think we're now talking about two different things - appropriate process as opposed to potential outcomes. This also isn't the place to pre-empt what those future discussions might conclude. Anyway, I'll not be instigating either course of action either way. Stalwart111 11:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] I agree with Till's decision to bring the AfD to deletion review, but I also endorse Y's closure of it as "no consensus". Most of the delete votes had no basis in policy whatsoever — the list is most certainly not an indiscriminate collection of information. The only argument that may have even a modicum of credence is the assertion that the article constitutes "fancruft", but it is well-sourced and likely to be useful as a reference for people looking up information on the subject (for reasons of disclosure, if I had participated in the AfD myself, my vote would have been "keep"). Consensus ≠ raw numbers. Kurtis (talk) 12:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Y's closure, per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Canuck^{89 (talk to me)} 20:48, December 3, 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

List of unreleased Britney Spears songs – "No Consensus" closure Endorsed. – Eluchil404 (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This closure was in error because it ignored the consensus that the topic carries no notability or relevance for an encyclopaedia. Seven editors were in favor of deleting the article, whereas only two editors !voted keep—and while Afd is WP:NOTAVOTE, numbers aren't meaningless. The administrator's closing comment amounted to "This is a very well sourced list, and a featured list", which is not precedent of a topic being notable. Till 05:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello friends, I am the admin who closed it. I stand behind my close. I felt that the headcount was not overwhelming and that the arguments of the delete side were weaker. -- Y not? 15:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well sourced (unlike similar lists deleted) and an appropriate spin out from Britney Spears discography, itself an appropriate spinout from Britney Spears.
Endorse, reasonable close, ~~although someone else might have called~~ "no consensus". Read Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion and consider relisting at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why did you place a 'keep' vote above? Per WP:DRV, "...Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question." Till 09:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Call it a declaration of my immediate gut reaction to the list-article and AfD nomination, if you like. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't endorse the close, but seriously, just renominate it if you want to see it deleted. How this got to FL is beyond me. --Claritas § 09:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The last time I did that, I received a bunch of abusive and unnecessary comments from people who wanted the article kept. Till 09:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - policy goes one way, head count goes the other; a perfectly reasonable no consensus. WilyD 10:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is the policy? All I see is 'This is a featured list and should be kept'. It is not uncommon for Featured articles/lists and GAs to be deleted. See this for the most recent example. Till 11:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also like to know what particular policy the deletion of this article would contravene. This is basically a case of WP:NOTTRIVIA. Claritas § 11:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It appears to meet WP:N, and there's no argument to be made that it runs afoul of the various WP:NOT. I seem them wikilinked, but nobody makes an argument (presumably because it's impossible, and the delete argument is WP:IDONTLIKEIT). WilyD 10:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The closing administrator made no mention about the list meeting WP:N. He noted that it was a Featured list and that the content is "high quality", which is not really a reason to keep an article. Till 21:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. "No consensus" was a perfectly reasonable reading of that discussion.—S Marshall T/C 12:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm how so? Till 13:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. There was simply "No consensus". Statυs (talk) 13:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse though I would have !voted keep, as I can see no basis in policy for deletion. They seem to be of wide public and press interest. I note we include coverage of the lost works of J. S. Bach in the relevant articles, and we could perfectly well compile them as a separate list also; they too are discussed by multiple reliable sources,including the major music encyclopedia. That the sources in one case are academic and in the other case not, is irrelevant. It was noted in the AfD that similar lists for other musicians have been deleted, and perhaps those AfDs are the ones that should be reviewed here. (Some were appropriately deleted as having no sources) (As Wikipedian in Residence at the New York Public Library of the Performing Arts, I'm amazed at the number of full academic books, that I've been coming across there incidentally , even without specifically searching for them, for topics that have been rejected by WP as trivia or not meeting NLIST. I doubt I'll have time or interest to follow them all up, but I may put a bibliography in user or WP space of what I've been finding to help others.) DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
endorse No consensus seems like an accurate summary- there' some decent argument for keeping and a decent argument for deletion, and neither convinced that many people either way. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Process was followed. MBisanz ^talk 19:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
endorse verifiable material, neutrally presented, so no overriding policy reason for deletion. Notability remains in question, but there's certainly not a consensus that it fails that subjective bar.--Scott Mac 22:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — there really isn't much high-quality content here. Most of the entries are sourced to the songwriting websites. While some are minor and trivial documents of a song being leaked. None of this content is notable, and this topic goes against Wikipedia's policy of WP:NOT. Till 23:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I see no fault in the closer's result. Incidentally, the FL status is being discussed at Wikipedia:Featured_list_removal_candidates#List_of_unreleased_Britney_Spears_songs - if people feel this should be deleted, go there and get it de-listed, and then re-nominate it for deletion. FLs can be deleted, but as they have shown that they meet notability to get to FL (they would have been deleted before that), then it is harder to persuade people that they should be deleted. Although I am not personally in favour of such lists, this one meets the criteria for inclusion here from what I can see - it is well-sourced. If I was to be !voting at an AfD, I would have said to keep. In this case, there was not a consensus to delete, so I repeat that I endorse the closer's conclusion. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The closing admin stated, "The result was No consensus to delete. This is a very well sourced list..." Unfortunately, these "well-sourced" lists include several WP:LINKVIO as references. BMI, copyright office and ASCAP are places where somebody in the Britney Spears camp have lodged a title, not necessarily an actual recording - released or otherwise. I am sure my points were clear in enough in the AfD. I have now pointed out that the closing admin didn't actually pay any attention to what those "well sourced" references were. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – the individual items in the list are not notable (otherwise they would all have articles) but the list itself is notable. All we need is a source for each item (which does not have to be third party as no claim is being made for the notability of each item, and none of the items is in any way controversial). I am quite surprised that there is even a discussion about this manifestly excellent list (some people really don't like lists) and not surprised that it is featured. Oculi (talk) 11:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Right...which is why it's already heading for a delist at WP:FLRC. Till 11:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - On spurious grounds. Oculi (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - What spurious grounds do you speak of? If you are talking about the article failing WP:V, I think I proved my point about that on the FLRC page. Till 00:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. A well-reasoned close. Far too many of the delete !votes focused on editors' opinions of what ought to be notable rather than actual notability guidelines. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The keep !votes pointed to the list having FL status which isn't an actual notability guideline or a valid reason to keep an article. Till 10:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - And, even allowing your debatable point, predominantly lousy arguments on both sides would reasonably lead to a "no consensus" close. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The delete !voters actually cited WP:NOT and highlighted the content in the article as not notable and unencyclopaedic. The fact that this list may have passed FL does not address the concerns with the article's notability, and nowhere did the closing administrator even mention these concerns in his closing comments. He also probably didn't even bother to take a look at the article, because almost a fifth of it fails verifiability, whereas he claimed it meets verifiability "with gusto". Till 13:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse - I'm a little concerned that the "common outcomes" highlighted during the discussion were not addressed. It's not an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument to point out that many (if not most) other similar articles have been deleted or redirected. That said, many of those were on their second nomination and I don't suppose the closing admin (or anyone else for that matter) would have any great objection to this being nominated again in the future (especially since it was closed as no consensus). Could more have been done to explain how the closer came to their conclusion (given the number of votes and disparate arguments)? Sure, maybe. But on balance I don't think no consensus was so unreasonable a conclusion that it needs to be overturned. Stalwart111 04:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Stalwart111 for these comments. Yes, there was no need for a DR for a "no consensus," but having said that, I took both article and discussion off my watchlist because I thought deletion was a foregone conclusion. How wrong I was! The underlying problem with all these "lists of unreleased songs" is that the songs are NOT notable out of context and purely as a list - this is not to say that some can't be merged into the relevant albums and/or into a List of songs recorded by Britney Spears. The notability of unreleased songs is purely because of the artist i.e. inherited. You may take this as confirmation that I oppose all "list of unreleased" at the present time. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I tend to see DRV mostly as a venue to review the close, rather than to "re-try" the original deletion nomination so I didn't comment on the merits of the article itself - just what I perhaps would like to have seen from the closer. At the end of the day, the result was "no consensus" and it looks like consensus here is that "no consensus" was reasonable. So the answer (to me) would be to leave it for a while and re-nominate. In my view, that would be the most appropriate way to "re-try" the AFD. Stalwart111 10:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. As I said, I wouldn't have brought to DR, but now it's here...--Richhoncho (talk) 11:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that you attempt to merge List of unreleased Britney Spears songs into Britney Spears discography before another attempt at deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, that might be a better first step. Stalwart111 10:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except that a list of songs is specifically NOT a discography (some artists already have a discography and a list of songs). --Richhoncho (talk) 10:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think we're now talking about two different things - appropriate process as opposed to potential outcomes. This also isn't the place to pre-empt what those future discussions might conclude. Anyway, I'll not be instigating either course of action either way. Stalwart111 11:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Till's decision to bring the AfD to deletion review, but I also endorse Y's closure of it as "no consensus". Most of the delete votes had no basis in policy whatsoever — the list is most certainly not an indiscriminate collection of information. The only argument that may have even a modicum of credence is the assertion that the article constitutes "fancruft", but it is well-sourced and likely to be useful as a reference for people looking up information on the subject (for reasons of disclosure, if I had participated in the AfD myself, my vote would have been "keep"). Consensus ≠ raw numbers. Kurtis (talk) 12:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Y's closure, per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Canuck^{89 (talk to me)} 20:48, December 3, 2012 (UTC)

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.