- 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. Spartaz Humbug! 07:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
List of recordings made at Abbey Road Studios[edit]
- List of recordings made at Abbey Road Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Stemming from this discussion, this is WP:RAWDATA; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not a directory of every album or song that has been recorded at any particular studio. There is no evidence that recording at this particular studio is a hugely notable distinction in the field of music that would warrant such an article. Many albums and songs have been recorded here. Some of them are notable. Some of them less so. It clearly isn't that much of an exclusive club. This list does not meet any purpose listed at WP:LISTPURP. Spiderone 20:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Even more of an indiscriminate collection of info than List of artists who have recorded at Abbey Road Studios Username6892 22:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - As stated in my vote over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of artists who have recorded at Abbey Road Studios, there seems to be a misperception about how recording at Abbey Road Studios is some sort of exclusive honor. But this list proves that the studio is a business and if someone pays then they're in. Walking in the door is not notable. This list may serve as interesting trivia for historians, but it belongs at a fansite and is too raw to function as a useful Wikipedia article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as article index complementary to Category:Albums recorded at Abbey Road Studios per NOTDUP and LISTPURP. We comprehensively categorize Category:Albums by recording location, and as we can see in Category:Albums recorded in the United States and Category:Albums recorded in the United States, we have plenty of subcategories for specific recording studios. No argument has been given to treat for treating this one differently. If it's WP:DEFINING enough to categorize, it's certainly important enough to list. The precedent the nom cites presented a very different relationship (musician to any studio they had used) than album to studio where it was recorded. postdlf (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I have encountered this argument before. WP:NOTDUP says that a list should not be nominated for deletion simply because the topic is also represented by a category. That argument was not made in this nomination, which contends that the list article is deficient due to the cited rules for list articles. The above vote is almost entirely about the existence of the category, which is not being disputed. The argument that an unsatisfactory list article should be kept, because there is a also a category about the same thing, is unconvincing and also veers into bureaucratic thinking. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- To the contrary, I view it as holistic thinking. It doesn't make sense that we'd delete a list as "unsatisfactory" when it's organized around the same concept that we categorize the same listed albums by, particularly when it's part of a larger system of categorizing them. That also implies a broader consensus for this way of classifying albums, at least until a broader CFD establishes otherwise. An AFD that targets one list without regard to how this type of content as a whole is organized strikes me as bureaucratic instead; this forum is simply not a good one for making such decisions that affect lots of articles, because AFDs are binary in outcome and tend to be myopic in what is considered. postdlf (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate your level-headed response and will simply agree to disagree. But I am also compelled to point out that there is a pretty large body of guidelines for list articles, many of which were cited by the nominator here with good reason. It appears that all those guidelines for the quality of list articles become pointless under this "holistic" approach toward listing and categorizing things. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I also think this list is defensible without recourse to the category system, as per Technopat below. I may not have gone out of my way to contribute to it, but I certainly see no compelling reason to delete indexes of articles on notable albums by their shared recording locations, especially when that studio is itself notable. There is no requirement that lists be limited to "hugely notable distinctions", "exclusive clubs" or "exclusive honors". postdlf (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As creator of the list back in 2007, I specifically stated then that it was aimed at relieving "the main article page [...] of what is, in some cases, just PR hype for various artists who happen to have recorded there." This was the version of "Abbey Road" at that time. The fact that the current version, many years later, is very similar to that same PR-use of Wikipedia that I tried to pre-empt is but a sad reflection and suggests that more effort needs to be put into ensuring Wp articles are encyclopaedic rather than simply eliminating these here pesky lists (which, in themselves, are pretty harmless and certainly more “objective” and, therefore, less subject to PR-related creativity than many "encyclopaedic" articles).
As for this specific AfD, I’m afraid I have to disagree with the nominator’s final statement that the list does not meet any of the three purposes listed at WP:LISTPURP:
“Information: The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists.” Comment: The list is structured chronologically.
“Navigation: Lists which contain internally linked terms (i.e., wikilinks) serve, in aggregate, as natural tables of contents and indexes of Wikipedia… If users have some general idea of what they are looking for but do not know the specific terminology, they could browse the lists of basic topics and more comprehensive lists of topics, which in turn lead to most if not all of Wikipedia's lists, which in turn lead to related articles…”. Comment: “... which in turn lead to… which in turn lead to related articles...”
“Development: Some lists are useful for Wikipedia development purposes. The lists of related topics give an indication of the state of Wikipedia, the articles that have been written, and the articles that have yet to be written. However, as Wikipedia is optimized for readers over editors,…”. Comment: This list is “optimized for readers…”
My understanding, as per my comments above, is that this list fully complies with each of the purposes. If I’m mistaken, please explain why this “list does not meet any purpose listed at WP:LISTPURP”.
Likewise, the nominator’s statement that “Wikipedia is not a directory of every album or song that has been recorded at any particular studio”; that’s evident. But the idea is that the list is made up of those recordings considered sufficiently notable to have a dedicated article at Wikipedia, which I consider a rule of thumb observed for many, if not most lists.
Regarding the statement that it is an “indiscriminate collection of info”, as the title very clearly states: this list is very specific (which means “not indiscriminate”). Any possible “indiscriminate” use that may stem from the fact that it is obviously open to future incorporations and/or items lacking. A “criticism” or, rather, fact easily applicable to just about any article at Wp, not to mention many of the lists here. The phrase “nothing is written in stone”, one of the great advantages to the whole Wikipedia “experience”, springs so easily to mind here.
As for the statement “there seems to be a misperception about how recording at Abbey Road Studios is some sort of exclusive honor”, where is any “exclusive honor” implied or stated in this list? If a recording is considered notable enough to be included here at Wikipedia, why should it not be included in a list? I really find it hard to be more factual/objective than providing a simple list, in this case, chronological, for simplicity.
I could continue answering more of the objections to keeping this list, but I fear I’ve used up more than my fair share of the space here, so will sign off here. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2020 (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.