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 No consensus to delete. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of albums containing a hidden track[edit]

List of albums containing a hidden track (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

A ginormous, far from complete list of albums containing a hidden track. While the concept of a hidden track is certainly notable, I feel that this list fails WP:LC criteria #2 (The list is of interest to a very limited number of people) and #3 (The list is a violation of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information). Furthermore, it is incredibly long. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As a horrible amount of listcruft. Ctjf83Talk 02:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Survived its last AfD - rather overwhelmingly - only three months ago; LISTCRUFT is neither policy nor guideline; nomination concedes concept is notable. Townlake (talk) 03:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A survival of another AfD is not a valid reason to keep. Other reasons to delete that are policy Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#DIRECTORY and Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information Ctjf83Talk 03:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So the question is whether this list is an indiscriminate collection of information (no; there are clear inclusion criteria for a list on a notable topic) or whether the list is a directory (no; I'm not sure how you think this qualifies as a directory; please elaborate?). As for the prior AfD, yes, articles can certainly be renominated; my perspective is that three months after a clear-"keep" prior AfD is far too soon. You disagree; I'm looking forward to seeing what others say, and I'm sure you are too. Townlake (talk) 03:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is basically a directory of albums with hidden tracks. While WP:Listcruft is not policy, it is good advice to follow, also, this list is not notable as this list would not be in any real paper encyclopedia. Ctjf83Talk 04:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I kind of like this article (But you see, i've already saved the page on my hard drive, so its no loss to me. I still can browse through it in private use) but the page is crufty and indiscriminate. Oh, and Ctjf83, i'd like to direct your attention to WP:NOTPAPER (yes, I know it isn't a free pass to inclusion, but simply stating that "a paper encyclopedia wouldn't cover "Article X" is really a pointless argument). There's also a shorter and better sourced for notability list at hidden track anyways. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 05:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete + Comment As per Ctjf83's "listcruft", however, this might make an interesting category. Merosonox  t c g  06:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, it should be added as a category. Ctjf83Talk 19:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:LIST. I respectfully disagree with the nominator's assertion that this is of limited interest -- quite the opposite, in my view. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional delete I believe a decent article could be created that is a list of notable hidden tracks. This would be albums containing hidden tracks that are reported in reputable independent resources; this would naturally be shorter than a list of notable albums that happen to contain hidden tracks. But, such a list would really require someone actively watching the article to see that the inclusion criteria is strictly enforced. Concievably, the inclusion criteria of this list can be explicitly stated (as per WP:SAL) to reflect the same thing; in which case, i'm fine with keeping it. I do like the idea of albums with a hidden track existing as a category, if such is not already the case. -Verdatum (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category idea was discussed in the previous AfD on this subject; the reasons for not treating it as a category appear sound in my opin. Townlake (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What would make a hidden track "notable" though? The only one I can think of that would really be "notable" would be "Skin (Sarabeth)" because it wound up being released as a single. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a fair question. My response: It's not the hidden tracks that are notable here, it's the albums that contain them. Certainly the addition of hidden tracks is a concept that is more commonplace today than it was in the past; that might be where our answer here is. So many albums have hidden tracks now that it's not a distinguishing feature. Would you agree with that statement? Townlake (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was using the word "notable" in terms of the general criteria for notability. IOW, a hidden track that has recieved "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject", and I have no idea how many hidden tracks can meet this criteria, but I'd expect it to be small. Certainly, any hidden tracks that meet WP:SONG would also be appropriate. Concerning the uniqueness of hidden tracks, I had just presumed it was a fad of the 90s, and had been declining in occurences since then, but what do I Know (yes, I'm too lazy to read the hidden track article right now). Concerning the reason for it not being a category, thank you for pointing that out, Townlake. I must admit, I don't understand the reasoning given in either the previous AfD or the prior CfD for the now-deleted category, but I expect that my understanding for criteria for categories is just off, I'm much more of an article person :) -Verdatum (talk) 21:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sometimes, a hidden track can become a pop hit, but the whole "notable hidden track" idea is the list that's already in the hidden track article. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but keep as a category. This list could go on forever. Hidden tracks are common now. Undeath (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Very trivial and just listcruft. RobJ1981 (talk) 11:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I missed the last vote, fortunately the list (I started it) is still there. It's a useful list that doesn't conflict with the above-mentioned criteria: it is of interest for quite a few people, cf. e.g. the amount of people contributing to the article and/or using it for reference (in Google the list appears as a first result below the article hidden track), and it's not an indiscriminate list (I just read WP:INDISCRIMINATE: the list does not contain FAQs/news/statistics/lyrics/plot summaries). The list contains information one cannot find elsewhere. The list should contain only notable hidden tracks, i.e. hidden tracks on albums that deserve a place (a separate article) on Wikipedia or have a special reputation. To decrease the length of the list one could implement this system. --Brz7 (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What about WP:NOT#DIR? This sure comes off as a list of loosely associated topics. And besides, which hidden tracks besides the very few that were released as singles? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an appropriate list topic, not a repository or loosely associated list. Whether a hidden track is released as a single itself does not necessarily make a hidden track notable: the artist should be notable enough to deserve an article on Wikipedia and on their best or all of their albums. --Brz7 (talk) 11:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Being too long is not CFD. --Lord₪Sunday 02:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as list of loosely associated topics per WP:NOTDIR. The intersection of the topics "albums" and "hidden tracks" produces nothing informative about either topic, nor does it reveal a significant shared quality of the albums listed. Deor (talk) 02:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Interesting, potentially useful for research into this baffling phenomenon (why would anyone hide a track?), obviously large amount of work done by many people interested in this topic, or the significant artists listed. What harm would it cause to leave it? Taking up too much memory? It was fun to scan through. Exactly the kind of thing that will only get produced by Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisrus (talk • contribs) 03:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep as it decisively passed AFD only 3 months ago and I see no indication anything has changed to warrant deletion so soon afterwards. 23skidoo (talk) 12:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The hidden track feature while not very rare, is definitely a feature of an album which matters to a buyer and the music industry. The criterion discriminates clearly, either the album has a hidden track or it doesn't. Actually, I think the article could be renamed to List of hidden tracks, since that is what this is a list of. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A very weak WP:CRUFTCRUFT nomination that says it's too long. AFD isn't cleanup. SashaNein (talk) 14:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; nothing to indicate significant changes which would require putting it up for AfD so soon after it had previously been kept; stop flogging the dead horse. I'd also like to point out that WP:LC is an essay, not a policy or even a guideline. Ironholds 07:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Useful, unique innformation--perfect for a forum such as Wikipedia. Not Listcruft--the information is too useful to qualify as such. Eauhomme (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Although it is missing references, I agree with the above users who decided to keep it. Lady Galaxy 22:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is useful. The page can be cleaned up so that it can stay. However, if it is deleted, I'll save the current revision on my computer. Bramblestar (ShadowClan Leader) (talk) 01:54, 29 August 2008 (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.