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. I don't detect a great deal of enthusiasm for this page but equally there is no consensus for deletion. There is obvious overlap with Paramore discography but, as has been pointed out, the scope of this page is broader. A reasonable next step would be for concerned editors to start a merge discussion. TerriersFan (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Paramore songs[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A discography already exists for the band. Article fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Previous AfD was withdrawn without results. SpigotMap 17:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - redundant to discography. --Anthem 17:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas [1]. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree that it might be indiscriminate, but I don't think the article is redundant of the discography since it covers all songs as opposed to the albums and the singles alone. Also, I know that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but the category mentioned at the first AfD [2] does bring a whole lot of other crap. I'm not sure it is possible to assess this article's validity without taking those into account - frankie (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit I didn't look at that list of lists before... That is a lot of crap. Regardless, the validity of this list is obviously voided by the discography. What is the purpose of having so many song lists... This list, The discography, and the Album pages all have song listings. SpigotMap 19:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The unreleased songs and covers are not listed in the main discography. In addition the note details are not available anywhere else. Therefore removing the page would reduce the amount of information available about the band which would seem to go against the whole idea of wiki. Perhaps the details could be added to the main discog however I don't recall any other discog pages that have sections for unreleased material etc. As such I would argue that the page isn't surplus in that the details contained would not fit into the standard format of other listings of the bands work, namely the main discography or album listings. --PilotDave (talk) 00:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So it is an indiscriminate collection of information that doesn't fit in anywhere else..? SpigotMap 12:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a collection of information that is useful and informative which does not fit into the standard layout format of the other pages of the discography and thus requires its own dedicated section - which it has. Deleting the page would remove information that is not accessible elsewhere - how that can be advantageous is unclear to me. PilotDave (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So the songs didn't fit the guidelines and style for inclusion in the discography so a loose list of songs with some random facts was put together? This is a list of information that is useless for the average fan or reader looking in to the artist, so how about we merge the information in to the artist's discography? That would be a happy medium. SpigotMap 16:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an average fan I would disagree with your comments as I found it very useful as it has allowed me to find information on songs that I didn't know existed from reading the main discography. By all means if it can be integrated into the main discog, as I mentioned in my first comment, then that would be a suitable solution. Perhaps a subsection in the main discography could be created for the unreleased materials i.e. the demo's and cover versions would suffice.

My main objection to the outright deletion of the page is that information that is not currently available elsewhere would be lost.

PilotDave (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - too trivial to mention all of their songs, someone can simply look through their albums. SwisterTwister (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, there are songs in the list that you can not find if you "simply look through their albums" as they are not detailed anywhere else except on the page in question. PilotDave (talk) 09:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This list is a different item from the discography and it serves a different purpose. It could be included on the discography, but that may be bloating an article with information that is beyond its scope. The information is redundant when presented like this, but it is inevitable that any list will replicate information found elsewhere, since its purpose is to centralize such information for better access by the user. Lastly, I don't think that WP:INDISCRIMINATE is much of an issue here, as the songs is the lowest point we can get to in terms of coverage (I think we would mostly agree that List of Paramore Verses is over the top). The notes section of the table looks like original research, so it should either be sourced properly, or be dropped - frankie (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Paramore discography. Track listings should be covered on the albums' pages; information on them can be added if they're not Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 14:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 22:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No section of WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies here, nor does it violate the spirit of WP:NOT. It's not a plot description, a lyrics database, or a collection of stats. Since this category demonstrates that a vast amount of other crap exists, we can call this precedent instead of labeling it crap. That's precisely why the first AfD nom was withdrawn. User:Frankie correctly points out the dearth of sourcing in the important notes section is a problem (rendering it WP:CRUFT to some readers). I notice that on the List of The Beatles songs, a similar lack of sources for notes is a problem. THAT list is clearly useful (and the notes section as well). BusterD (talk) 12:22, 2 July 2011 (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.