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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of songwriter collaborations[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No clear criteria for inclusion. Terms like "few", "lengthy", "influence", "measured in decades" are completely subjective, and assigning any actual number would be arbitrary. For instance, The Peach Pickers have dozens of hits, but would theirs be of lasting impact? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 12:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, long, and non-notable IMO Vaca tion 9 12:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Incomplete, unmaintainable and non-notable list, it lacks several influential duets, and also does not cite any source to back-up what is claimed in the article. Wikipedia is not a personal playlist or any of some sort. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 14:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't usually like to insert threaded replies in such discussions, but in looking this over again I think I'd better. Almost all lists are incomplete—this is Wikipedia, the ultimate work in progress—so the claim of incompleteness is specious. There's zero evidence in the article history that the list has had maintenance problems, let alone has been "unmaintainable". It does meet the notability guideline. It not only lacks "several influential duets" but lacks any duets: it's a list of people. (Ditto re your mention of playlists.) So of all the points you crammed into that short !vote, we're left only with the issue of sourcing (which has already been addressed below and can be fixed in the article). Please consider actually looking at the article in question before commenting here. Rivertorch (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list is pointless and unencyclopedic. I say pointless because it only lists names, and unencyclopedic because lists like these are not proper encyclopedia references. Besides, most of these songwriter collaborations can be mentioned on the article songwriter. Epzik8 (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the simple criterion "This is a list of famous songwriting teams." References aren't all that hard to find[1][2][3][4] and the academics have sunk their esoteric teeth into the subject.[5][6] It just needs some cleanup and sourcing, along with eras and genres. Clarityfiend (talk)
Keep. This is a tremendously useful starting point for anyone seeking information about collaborative songwriting, and I'm not aware of any other article that could appropriately have similar scope. (Songwriter? Absolutely not.) The inclusion criteria can easily be tightened up, and perhaps they should, but they've actually worked quite well thus far: the article has actually been well maintained, entries that don't meet the existing criteria have been removed, and constructive discussion about the criteria has taken place on the talk page. As Clarityfiend notes, sourcing wouldn't be difficult, but it's also not an urgent problem, since the content easily meets WP:V and isn't controversial. Just a list of names? Yeah, at the moment. But a brief description can be added to each entry to explain who the names belong to and why they're noteworthy. Missing entries? Well, of course. Is there such a thing as a finished Wikipedia article? Even Featured Lists have been known to have omissions! The fact that a list is imperfect isn't a valid reason to delete it. A more appropriate solution is to improve it. Rivertorch (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, how do we improve it? Any sort of criterion would just be arbitrary. Those that have written X amount of songs over Y years = arbitrary. Those with a "lasting impact" = totally subjective and unverifiable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made the point on the talk page last year that impact is subjective. That's not an insurmountable problem, though. Lots of criteria for lists (both standalone and within articles) involve setting various thresholds. It's not a completely arbitrary process—it just requires someone making a reasonable proposal and other editors agreeing with it. I do not believe impact is unverifiable. There surely are ample reliable sources testifying to the lasting impact of lots of songwriting teams. Rivertorch (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that there's a problem here. We don't have to (nor should we) set arbitrary standards. The criterion is simply that reliable sources say they're notable collaborative teams. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've started a major overhaul. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic of "songwriter collaborations" is a notable one. This book, for example, focuses entirely on seven songwriting teams. This Rolling Stone piece also discusses many of these teams at length. Another book contains a 66-page chapter on British songwriters, with much of it devoted to collaborations (e.g., Carter/Lewis, Lennon–McCartney). Billboard magazine has this article from 1995 on the "team-writing trend" in Nashville. This 1977 column from the magazine ranks the songwriting teams with the most number-one hits. These books on the business of songwriting address the process of collaborating (with notable examples) in detail. So, the topic satisfies WP:LISTN in my view. As to what the list's criteria should be, Clarityfiend's suggestion of "famous songwriting teams" works for me as a starting point. The Peach Pickers would seem to qualify (Billboard and Reuters call them a hit songwriting trio). To use a request from the list's talk page, Mark Hoppus and Tom DeLonge would not qualify for inclusion here as I'm not seeing reliable sources identify them specifically as "songwriter collaborators". Gong show 21:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Warden (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not too sure, but keep I guess. Songwriting collaborations (mostly duos) are a notable phenomena. The points about inclusion criteria are valid, but so are the rebutting points. FWIW I watch this page and try to keep to it trimmed somewhat. If if ever goes unwatched it could turn into a mess though. On the other hand the new format changes do add more useful info. Herostratus (talk) 05:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Gong. As to the argument "this is incomplete", that is true of a high percentage of our lists. We don't generally delete on that basis. Epeefleche (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2013 (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.