Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable trance music records

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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. No prejudice against an article under the same name being created providing it is reliably sourced as per the constructive discussions below. I do note that the two editors who recommended keeping and trimming have similarly accepted that starting from a clean slate may be a better option. Proto ► 11:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable trance music records

[edit]
List of notable trance music records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Hopelessly compromised list. Barely any sources to speak of, let alone any sources which actually determine which records are notable. One Night In Hackney 22:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unfixably POV-ridden OR nightmare. Otto4711 23:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. as above. Mystache 23:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extra strong delete There is no way this can be anything but POV and OR. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 23:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim, strongly against delete Keep/Trim: I attest against the claim that the article is unfixably POV. Several lists of a similar nature exist across the web (typically guised as trance classics), such as [1], [2], [3], [4] and [5] (in addition to those listed on the article talk page: [6], [7]). There are also numerous related CD compilations, such as [8], [9], [10] and, most notably, [11]. Anyone can see that the vast majority of these sources have a good number of the tracks (or, at least, artists) in common, both amongst themselves as well as with the article. I would consider it severely lacking for an encyclopedia not to have a list of defining trance records, such as, at bare minimum, Binary Finary's "1998", Age of Love's "The Age of Love" and Energy 52's "Cafe Del Mar". I admit that the lack of citations are problematic; however, I am sure that there are at least a few entries for which an authoritative non-disputable claim to notability can be made, such as Solar Stone's "Seven Cities" being credited as "The best trance record of the last 10 years" by DJMag. What I strongly recommend should be done is to clear the list, and allow it to be reconstructed on condition that each entry is backed by a notable (authoritative) source. CounterFX 00:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: Discogs figures have been corrected to exclude other tracks released by the same artist)
The point I am trying to get across is that, despite there possibly not being a single conclusive listing on which the article may be based, a set of tracks which enjoy worldwide recognition as classics does exist . Notwithstanding, I would concede to One Night In Hackney's point that the present article might not be a good starting point. I was wondering, how about moving the present list to the article talk page (or a subpage), trimming the actual article to three or four tracks (possibly using the above-given justifications for notability; specifically: notable remixes and Discogs figures), and allowing future editors to re-introduce tracks provided that they explicitly demonstrate the tracks' notability when doing so?
CounterFX 11:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Trim Article should be retained. By the article's nature it is subject to editors adding a lot of opinion-based, unsourced additions; similarly, a lot of additions which are relevant but unsourced, compromising the lists integrity. This is not a reason for deletion, it is only a reason for some heavy-handed, counter-POV/weasel editing. I have attempted this to a degree in the past, but it is a mammoth task, and I don't have the boldness to make such cleanups. Starting from a clean-slate is viable. I think it is perfectly reasonable to construct a veritable list of notable trance records, by using creditable sources such as those outlined by Counter FX. It should simply be noted that unreasonably verified, or unverified additions will be deleted, unmercilessly ;). Early Q 23:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In fairness, the entire article is (and always seems to have been) unsourced, that is a valid deletion reason. If there are no sources, there is no integrity to compromise in the first place. If you currently remove every record that isn't reliably sourced as a notable trance record, the list ceases to exist. One Night In Hackney 23:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I agree that restarting the article from a clean-slate (and subsequently watching the page for unreferenced additions) would be the best way to go, although I still suggest making the old list available (through the talk page) for editors who wish to take up the task of finding authoritative sources for the present tracks. Regarding the comment that the article has always been unsourced: this is, in my opinion, a false claim. The entry for Zyon's "No Fate" asserts that it was "the first successful trance release on Eye Q", as is corroborated on the label's own website. The entry for Solar Stone's "Seven Cities" gives a citation from DJMag identifying it as "the best trance record of the last 10 years" - an indisputably valid claim to notability (provided the citation is correct).
I have also actually managed to locate one authoritative listing: Ministry of Sound's Fifteen:50, a chart giving the "50 biggest dancefloor filling tunes of the last 15 years" which also includes several of the trance tracks mentioned in the article. The chart states that it is the result of "numerous interviews with DJ’s, loads of posts to this site and some very heated arguments" (valid criteria for notability); this, coupled with the indisputable status of MoS, is sufficient (in my opinion) to refer to it as an authoritative source. CounterFX 02:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But the question remains, what about the next source that the next editor decides is an authoritative source? What if that authoritative source conflicts with your authoritative source? Otto4711 04:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You're also confusing asserting (alleged) notability with being sourced, because the link you provided for No Fate isn't in the article. What makes the first successful trance release on a particular record label notable? Were there more successful releases before that on other record labels? Were there subsequently even more successful releases after that on the same record label? Even then successful and notable aren't the same thing, and I certainly wouldn't accept a record company's claim that a record was "successful" as a claim of notability, bare minimum would have to be independent verification that the record was successful even if that was the same as notability which I don't think it is. The DJMag claim is not sourced, it isn't a citation. It simply claims it's one of the "best" (which I don't consider to mean notable anyway) releases of the last 10 years, but provides no information so anyone can verify this. Which issue of DJMag is it in? They don't have an online archive, so without a publication date it's an unsourced claim. The MoS list isn't a list of notable records, it's a list of popular records. Notability and popularity are not the same thing. One Night In Hackney 11:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But popularity makes something notable, if only notable for being so popular. Perhaps what you are suggesting here is a change to the phraseology of the article's title. Such a change would be pedantic rather than effecting any real change. Otto4711's comment seems to undermine the policy of sourcing and citation too much. DJMag is the international herald of information with regards to dance music; it may not be accurate or make positive statements, but then neither does the BBC or Rolling Stone. If conflicting statements do arise in sources, then this makes an interesting point in the article :). Early Q 18:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps the last two examples I gave were not the best choice. I agree that the DJMag claim not being sourced destroys its verifiability.
The main issue, as I see it now, can be split into two arguments:
  • The legitimacy of the list itself existing as an article in conformance with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. As I see it, it was the disputing of this legitimacy that motivated the AfD nomination
  • The criteria for notability against which candidate trance music records may be evaluated
For the latter argument, I would maintain my original position that, in the trance music scene, notability is defined by
  • the number of compilations the track appears on
  • the number of remixes that the track has enjoyed from leading artists
  • the frequency of its inclusion in sets played by leading DJs
  • its influence on the evolution of the trance genre in general or a subgenre in particular
  • (non-exclusively) a measure of the track's popularity
The first two criteria are verifiable against Discogs, the third and the fifth were addressed by the MoS's Fifteen:50 chart. Of course, I am not insisting that the criteria given above are conclusive - I am certain that they can be improved - but rather that a set of objective criteria for notability can be defined, and should be reached by community consensus.
Meanwhile, the legitimacy of the list is addressed by the Wikipedia-endorsed assertion that notability is not subjective. Thus, a track's inclusion warrants more than just it being an editor's favourite, and would not violate NPOV provided that it satisfies the criteria for notability (as discussed above). Given that the criteria are accepted and abided by, the legitimacy issue should also be resolved.
CounterFX 14:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal I have constructed (from scratch) a draft version of what could be used as a starting point for the new article. I would appreciate it if you reviewed the proposed article and proposed talk page. As you will see, all claims are referenced and the notability of the tracks is explicitly stated. I believe that, in this form, the article would successfully resolve the issues of NPOV and notability. However, as has been earlier pointed out, rebuilding the entire article using this level of referencing is a massive task; I would propose starting off with just the three given tracks and see how the article evolves.
Recommendation If no-one finds any objection to my proposal, I would recommend that the article be blanked and replaced (not moved, so as to preserve history) by the draft, together with its talk page. The old contents of the talk page would be archived within a subpage of the talk page (since they would no longer be applicable to the new article). I will personally (timetable permitting) keep a regular watch on any additions being made to the page.
CounterFX 18:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, I've reviewed your proposed article and talk page and I don't see that it's a solution. I think the best solution remains to delete this article and, as particular trance songs attain notability, write articles about them and then categorize them as appropriate. Otto4711 21:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how that's a solution. Many songs with articles are not among the most notable in their genres, and categories are not annotated, as repeatedly pointed out during the actors by series categories debate. –Unint 18:52, 25 February 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_notable_trance_music_records&oldid=1069475510"