Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KROQ Top 106.7 Countdowns (2nd nomination)

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, now the second AfD in the past 2 months, with good arguments on both sides. The nomination, however, is essentially the same as the one kept in the absence of consensus in July 2006, with the arguments essentially being the same this time also. -- Samir धर्म 05:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KROQ Top 106.7 Countdowns

I am listing this article and its subarticles for deletion again because I believe the consensus on the last discussion should have been "delete". Also, after reading this discussion from last month (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Binaca Geetmala 1971), I saw that many other users agreed these articles should be deleted.

Once again, I really don't think local radio station year-end countdowns are notable enough to deserve articles, especially not notable enough to deserve an article for every year from 1980 to 2005. This main article and the 26 sub-articles should all be deleted. KROQ may be a popular radio station in L.A., but that does not mean all of its year end countdowns are notable. These countdowns were copied and pasted from this page of KROQ's official site. A link to the countdowns can be added to the main KROQ-FM article. Also, others may use these articles as a reason to create similar articles for their local radio stations. musicpvm 17:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Previous discussion
• Very old VFD discussion
• Delete every last one as listcruft and copyvio. BoojiBoy 19:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per every last word of BoojiBoy above. -- Slowmover 20:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. per above. —dima ^/sb.tk/ 21:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - per all the reasons of the LAST two discussions (this was only up a month ago, I think it's way too soon to put it up for AfD again) PT ^(s-s-s-s) 23:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete subs. Arguably there's encyclopedic value in knowing what was popular in a certain place in a certain year... but having 20+ pages of word-for-word duplication of an external site isn't necessary. Keep the main article and turn the subarticles into external links an external link to here. Fireplace 17:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Even though much of the same information can be found elsewhere on the web, I think this is a very valuable and historic resource. This is like a time capsule of alternative rock and new wave music over the years, from the station that pretty much invented the format (now known as alternative rock. I also like the Wikified links to various artists here. I ask myself, is Wikipedia better or worse for having these articles here? I would say 'better'. For historic value, I say keep these pages. This is a lot different than archiving Top 40 lists from some anonymous CHR station in Boise, don't you think? --Fightingirish 03:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete subs. ^BlankVerse 13:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Listcruft and every station basically does this so these lists are not notable. Vegaswikian 04:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep KROQ is one of the most famous rock stations in the world if not the most famous. Thus, their lists have value on wikipedia. Nickieee 07:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Borders on listcruft, but given KROQ's importance in American radio it's notable. Like another voter said, it gives a unique insight into the development of modern rock music. If prose could be worked into the lists, that might alleviate some of the issues here. Although I must say this deserves to be here as much as a list of Festive Fifty songs by John Peel, and none of those are listed on Wikipedia. WesleyDodds 00:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom - or merge. HawkerTyphoon 16:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. There is no place on Wikipedia for the articles that contain just the lists with no commentary on them: those are a form of copyright violation, and I will make a nomination on them shortly. Keeping that in mind, this is just a list of links to those articles, and will serve no purpose. So, delete as a indiscriminate collection of links to copyright violations. Mangojuice^talk 05:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

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.