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. JohnCD (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of B-side compilation albums[edit]

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

Declined PROD. My argument was that it duplicated Category:B-side compilation albums but now I have a couple better ones (since that didn’t fly then and wouldn’t fly now).

First off, the category is much easier to update - just slap it onto an article and there you go. The list is more difficult to update, and less likely to be updated (either to begin with or because of that).

Second, the list contains some extraneous information - “Albums with extensive B-sides”. There could be hundreds of albums like these, all with articles on Wikipedia, and multiple editions thereof. An album having an extensive complement of B-sides that appear on the (or only a) special edition isn’t what the list or the category are about, and such a detail isn’t notable enough to have a list dedicated to it (in this article or any other). This isn’t Discogs, where such information can be presented much more concisely and properly. Lazy Bastard Guy 22:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perfectly valid list with clear inclusion criteria of a notable topic. Having a category that is "easier to update" isn't grounds to delete the article, and articles & categories go hand-in-hand per WP:CLN. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with the nomination, but WP:CLN (and WP:NOTDUP in particular) is pretty clear that this is a legit article. Until there's consensus to change that guideline, we're stuck with these articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To pre-empt a likely argument, "The list contains entries that do not have their own articles, which a category could not," I have a few rebuttals. First of all, Wikipedia is not a directory and trying to bring this article up to something that is even remotely complete in this regard makes it large, unwieldy, and inversely useful (because readers may find it cumbersome and it does not lend itself very well to being read through at all, not that I'm sure lists are really intended this way but still...). Second, this article has no sources; this wouldn't be a problem for entries that have articles describing albums reliably identified as such but it absolutely is a problem for all other entries, especially those not linked to existing articles because the albums themselves may not even exist or, more likely, are not technically B-side compilation albums. That in itself limits how complete this article can be and the added usefulness as compared to the category is therefore limited. Lazy Bastard Guy 18:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Second, this article has no sources". WP:SOFIXIT. And how does having a category make that any better? I could slap that category on a dozen articles and you'd be none the wiser, without having to check each article within the category. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The category requires that the article exist first. To be used, the category must be cited/justified in the article. It's more difficult, especially these days (what with people prowling new article creations), to create an album article and have it stay around. Besides, why should I have to clean-up after other users who didn't bother to check or post sources for anything? I'd prefer to set the example that we don't allow policy/guideline violations to exist for years and then finally get corrected, which gives the impression that we allow people to use Wikipedia incorrectly regardless of whether they know better. This page just begs for too many submissions that haven't been checked, and in all likelihood refer to albums so obscure they can't be verified (and Google is limited; I'd estimate there are far more print sources than online ones and that limits my ability to do as you suggest).

Furthermore, some of the list entries aren't even B-side compilation albums - things like The White Elephant Sessions and other bootlegs, mostly non-notable. What are the criteria for being eligible for this list? I'd say the category has better ones. Lazy Bastard Guy 18:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, my argument was not that the article didn’t have sources, just that requiring them for those entries that didn’t have their own articles to link to made it of limited additional use as compared to the category. Duplicating lists and categories makes sense sometimes, but when they just end up being more or less carbon copies of each other, it makes less sense to me to keep the list when the category has more technical usefulness (from an editing standpoint). Lazy Bastard Guy 18:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Furthermore, some of the list entries aren't even B-side compilation albums - things like The White Elephant Sessions and other bootlegs" Then be bold and remove the ones that are not B-side albums. I've also spent a minute adding references for a couple of albums I have. Should be easy enough to source the rest. The inclusion criteria should be updated to remove any entry (either band or album) that currently doesn't have its own article too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...and this is where policy & I differ. This just leads me back to something I do not support, that the list and category basically replicate each other. I see no point to this. I think I've said everything I'm going to say here, and I don't care how this turns out. I'm going to drop this and move on with my life. Thank you. Lazy Bastard Guy 16:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my point is not that I don't like it, it's that I see it as inefficient. But thanks for that remark, even though I said I was done. Lazy Bastard Guy 22:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTDUP as explained above. And not that it's necessary to justify keeping it, but the mere fact that this is annotated with the album's recording artist alone makes it much more than a "carbon copy" of the category. It can also be annotated with year of release, label... postdlf (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2014 (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.