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. Article has been moved to a non-PEACOCK title. I think the unverified statement tag is appropriate, as there are some unverified claims which shouldn't be left unverified. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 22:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of recordings with a prominent flanging effect[edit]

List of recordings with a prominent flanging effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Predominantly unsourced WP:Original research, and WP:LISTCRUFT. Oli Filth^(talk) 21:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the article doesn't have an AfD tag on it. The Transhumanist 22:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. Thanks for spotting! Oli Filth^(talk) 22:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, or merge into flanging - I found the list very interesting - this is the very type of feature that puts Wikipedia above all other encyclopedias. It's organic. The list could be very useful for someone studying flanging effects in music, and therefore is not listcruft. And it appears some work has been done on gathering references. Also, the songs themselves are a source for verifiability. Anyone can check a song for flanging, and songs are easily accessible in most cases. It's analogous to quoting a movie, and citing the movie as the source for the quote. This list should be kept, or added to the article flanging as "Examples of recordings with a prominent flanging effect". Is there any chance of getting permission from the publishers to present sound clips from these songs? That would really make the list useful. The Transhumanist 22:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortuantely, WP:INTERESTING is not a reason for keeping an article.

I see your point on it not being cruft, but due to the haphazard way the list has been compiled, it seems almost trivial (not least because there's no criteria for how notable a song has to be to be included), so I stand by my opinion.

The songs are not a source for verifiability; in many cases it's open to interpretation as to whether a particular effect is flanger, chorus, phaser, echo, or just a trick of microphone placement; see some of the discussions on the article's talk page. Any such inference without a reliable source is pure OR.

As for merging into Flanging, this list was originally part of that article, but was split out after a discussion there; see Talk:Flanging#Recordings with a prominent flanging effect. Incidentally, that conversation gives an example of the "open to interpetation" I refer to, as well as echoing my opinion that it's crufty. Oli Filth^(talk) 22:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning notability, if a song is notable, then it is notable enough to be listed on Wikipedia. Notability requirements are not typically set in specific articles, they are set by WP:N. I interpreted the word "prominent" in the article's title to refer to the acoustics of the effect rather than to the popularity of the sample. That word could easily be removed. The nobability problem is tied into the OR issue, and both are solved by providing sources. Let the article be sourced. The Transhumanist 22:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If suitable sources can be found, I agree that this would imply the songs in question are probably satisfactorily notable. As for the use of "prominent"; on the one hand its use leads to subjectivity. On the other hand, without such a criterion, then there's a million songs out there that will have some form of flanging added to some extent during mastering. Oli Filth^(talk) 22:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as original deprodder despite the concerns I raised on the talkpage, and my general dislike of lists. This is a sourced (partially, but the remainder could be sourced by a dedicated editor with a copy of The Rough Guide to Music), interesting and useful list. (Before anyone starts quoting ATA at me, can I remind them that that's a personal essay not a policy.) As TTH says, this kind of list is one of the reasons Wikipedia shines while the wannabes fall by the wayside; something that will never be included in Britannica or even Knol, but is potentially very valuable to someone researching the subject. I'm baffled by the use of WP:LISTCRUFT as a nomination reason - quite aside from the fact that LC is, again, a personal essay, this is the type of list specifically not considered as "listcruft" in that essay; a parent article exists, and the list would be disproportionately long as part of the parent article. — iridescent 22:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I find the list encyclopaedic for the reasons pointed out by The Transhumanist. Although there's likely a component of original research (which is why I tagged the article as such), with only a couple hours of research, I was able to cite a dozen of the entries, leading me to believe that many more of the entries could easily be cited as well; I just haven't had the time to continue work on the list. dissolve^talk 22:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding your comment on finding sources, fair enough. But is anyone likely to do this? The article has been tagged as OR for months, and only 12 out of 80 or so have had sources found (no disrespect intended to the effort you put in, though!). I guess we could remove all the unsourced items, but that hardly leads a very useful, encyclopaedic, or comprehensive list. Oli Filth^(talk) 22:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sources seem to have been tracked down in November, just over a month ago. So it seems very likely that more sources could be forthcoming. Maybe the editor who provided those sources would be willing to provide some more.   :)   Also, notices could be placed on the relevant noticeboards to recruit help to source this article. There are many alternatives to deletion that are no more cumbersome than participating in this discussion. (hint hint wink wink concerning the approach taken). The Transhumanist 22:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • TTH is right though - for something like this, the songs are the source. (Try removing the material directly sourced from the subject of the article here, for example — although it might provide an interesting bit of wikidrama.) — iridescent 23:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not sure I understand the Harry Potter analogy! However, the songs cannot be the source if one cannot discern whether the effect is one of several that sound similar (as I mentioned above), which may be the case even for quite strong-sounding use of one of these effects. A (somewhat weak) analogy would be a "list of songs recorded with a Fender Telecaster". Sure, it has a fairly recognisable sound, and I bet we could start such a list, and say "the songs themselevs are the sources". But there's a dozen ways of replicating that sound; without authoritative sources, it would be OR. Oli Filth^(talk) 23:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I posted my last version of the list from the few days I worked on it in November 2007. It should address some of the concerns with organization of the list into a timeline and additional references. Although more references are needed, I think it illustrates that much of the list is citable with published secondary sources. Perusing the sources will also indicate the notability of the subject matter. dissolve^talk 23:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per The Transhumanist. This is actually a well put-together list. Tavix (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But 75% unsourced... Oli Filth^(talk) 00:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there is no possible objective criterion as to whether a flanging effect is "prominent" or not. That in itself would mandate the relocation of this article to List of articles with a flanging effect. However, even with that move the list is still a directory of loosely-associated topics. The inclusion of a particular instrument, sound or sound effect in a song does not create any sort of encyclopedic relationship between the songs that include the effect in question. We have deleted any number of similar lists of songs that include particular instruments or sounds. Otto4711 (talk) 01:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I was the user who "created" this article by detaching it from the article Flanging. It had become too long for the main article and contained some non-notable and unverified examples. Generally, lists on their own are not good Wikipedia writing style, so it would not be a great loss for this article to be deleted. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but rename based on Transhumanist arguments and User:Dissolve's citations. Should be renamed to List of recordings with a flanging effect. The word prominent is a weasel word in this instance (is 15% of the recording "flanged", or 50%? What makes it prominent? Is there a threshold?) A vague adjective doesn't belong in the title of an article, IMO. Keeper | 76 22:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum. I think I meant WP:PEACOCK there, not WP:WEASEL. In fact, I'm sure I meant peacock. Keeper | 76 22:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There were already a dozen cites in this article when it was nominated for AfD ( there's 26 right at the moment ). I really have to question "unreferenced" as a reason for deletion. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because each of the items in the list is completely independent of the others (hence Otto4711's comment above), and so each needs its own reference. I do appreciate that there are now many more cited items, but what do we do with the 55 or so that are still uncited? Oli Filth^(talk) 16:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait. I've always heard that "patience is a virtue". The Transhumanist 01:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed. But being a cold-hearted editor, I've also heard "Do not leave unsourced information in articles for too long" (WP:V)! If this AfD closes as a keep, I would put money on the majority of the remaining items never being sourced by anyone. Oli Filth^(talk) 01:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Luckily, "There is no deadline.". dissolve^talk 03:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oli, you've edited a completely unsourced article called List of chief executive officers 33 times, and yet you haven't nominated that list for deletion. There are articles you've edited even more than that which are also predominantly unsourced. It appears you are applying WP:VER selectively. In your own words you are "cold-hearted", so why are you giving those pages special treatment? Why do those deserve to remain on Wikipedia and this one does not? The Transhumanist 11:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Your observation is correct; however, my only edits to that article have been to remove red-links or non-links. Any items I haven't touched are linked to existing WP articles, each of which (I assume, but haven't checked) describes the individual as a CEO, and I assume would've been deleted if incorrect or non-notable. IMHO, it's overkill to directly source list articles which simply collate links to other WP articles which confirm membership of the list, e.g. List of musical instruments, List of proteins. This list, however, is different, in that even if each of the items had its own article, they wouldn't all say "This song used a flanger...". Oli Filth^(talk) 13:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Good answer. I agree that the items in the list should be sourced within a reasonable time. The Transhumanist 12:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - articles similar to this one that have been deleted include but are not limited to: List of musical releases featuring a vocoder; List of songs featuring a theremin; List of sampled songs. There is no difference between those lists of songs featuring a particular type of instrument or sound and this one. Otto4711 (talk) 05:26, 7 January 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.