Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Riddims

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Category:Riddims can be used for any notable Riddims or songs instead, and Diwali Riddim is a template for creating articles on individual Riddims. Contact me if userification of this deleted article is needed for informational retrieval.— Scientizzle 16:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Riddims

List of Riddims (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Suggest deletion as this pointless list gives no encyclopedic context and would be better served through categorization. See also: List of books to which Stephen King has written an introduction. Burntsauce 21:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Listcruft and unencyclopedic. Since the list is so darn big (131 different sections not counting EL's) , I don't think categorisation would do any better. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 22:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as an unencyclopedic list. No clear criteria for inclusion (since I think Riddim is a somewhat flexible definition), and not sourced. Bfigura (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's an astonishingly comprehensive list (and the article on riddim gives a relatively good definition - I speak here with my dancehall aficionado hat on), but given that the vast majority of the riddims, let alone the songs themselves, have articles I'm not sure this is a good idea for an article. Precisely what Stephen King's introductions has to do with this discussion I'm not sure. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't understand what's pointless and miscellaneous about this list. The riddim article gives a clear defitinition of riddim and all of the elements of this list follow that definition. The list is of X's, not of X, Y, Z and W's that happen to have A in common - like the Stephen King introduction article. If it were List of songs that use the 100-watts riddim I'd be more inclined to delete. Also there is indeed sourcing - the songs cited are themselves verifiable sources. Bacchiad 13:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the issue is that it might be a WP:OR violation. Since the songs themselves don't claim or mention a particular riddim, someone has to make a determination as to which riddim is in which song. And while that's ok if the determination is made in a reliable souce, if an editor is doing it, it's original research. Just my thoughts. --Bfigura (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure about this. Your claim rests in part on the supposition that reliable sources must be written. I don't see where this is explicitly specified anywhere. Now, let's suppose written and sonic sources have equal standing. Let's say we had a List of poems in trochaic tetrameter. Would a secondary source be needed to say that all of the poems listed are in trochaic tetrameter? Or would any intelligent non-specialist reader's perception of trochaic rhythm be enough to go on? I'm not sure what the answer to that should be, but IMHO the same principle should apply in this case. Bacchiad 17:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The primary rationale for that deletion was that the scream features only as a brief sound effect in those films, and the list is thus a directory of loosely associated topics. This is not the case in riddims, which form the backbone of a song. The claim of original research was introduced later on in that discussion, so I don't believe the voting patterns there are sufficient to establish precedent on this question. Bacchiad 18:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Moreover, the Wilhelm scream list presupposed that each one of the members of the list used the specific sound sample, which is not possible to verify. By the riddim article, it is clear that riddim need not refer to identical shared sound samples, but may refer to a common bassline and drum pattern. Bacchiad 18:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • ...determined as common through original research. Right. Burntsauce 18:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Exactly. According to WP:RS: "A reliable source is a published work regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand". The problem with arguing that a song is a RS is that in order to get at the riddim information, someone has to interpret it. And if editors are doing the interpreting, it's OR (or SYNTH). After all, what happens if two editors disagree which riddim a song has? If we were citing a published source, someone goes and looks it up, and sees who's correct. If it's purely interpretation, it's not resolvable, as it's becomes a matter of opinion. --Bfigura (talk) 04:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. As long as this article has sources, there should be no reason to delete it. Looking at the article now, it is ripe for deletion. However, this article is a very good reference; it shows which songs are on a particular riddim, and since there are hundreds of reggae / dancehall riddims, it can be expanded. This article really needs sources though. I am in favour of keeping this article, it just needs a few sources here and there and it will make for a great reference. Blackjays1 02:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-encyclopedic listcruft. It should be noted that although Blackjays1 has motioned to keep the article, his arguments are those to delete it as well. WP:USEFUL is not a criterion for inclusion, not that it would be useful to anyone given the broad, interpretive subject matter and complete lack of references. RFerreira 19:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as listcruft. nothing more needs to be said... its all said above.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:UNENC and WP:NOR. Marginal interest listcruft in the extreme. If each individual riddim were notable then there might be a case for a category, but they aren't so there isn't. A1octopus 22:45, 7 October 2007 (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.