Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Remixography of Mariah Carey

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. I'm being generous here, and considering the commentary by Grey Pursuit to likely be the anon who had previously been editing the article; it seems fair to allow the principal author to want to keep. I'm also considering OmegaWikipedia, they aren't a AfD regular, but that is no disqualification and they edit extensively in pop music articles. The comment by Rightsaidfred was their 8th edit and disregarded. At raw vote count, that's 11d-5k and just above the traditionalish 2/3 threshold. Reading the debate, there are many delete votes that feel this is either a collection of indiscriminate information or a 'meta-article', and the few reasons associated with the keepers don't persuade me that the ordinary thresholding is not a useful guidance here. -Splash 01:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Remixography of Mariah Carey

The information is all included in the individual articles; this is just fan-cruft creep, with no encyclopædic value. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Creep? OmegaWikipedia 04:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Just to keep things clear. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There's quite a bit of precedent for keeping discography info, and since Carey is undoubtedly a popular singer with a considerable history, we can afford to have some detail in this area. That said, I wouldn't want to see similar "remixographies" for every artist who's had a single or two, but this should stay. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:58, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We are standing at the top of the slippery slope, staring down. Nandesuka 11:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• DeleteWikipedia is not an indiscriminant collection of information. DV8 2XL 12:21, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Besides which, something like Discogs.com is the best place for this kind of thing; once this article is up, people will create remixographies for everyone, including themselves, non-notable artists etc, because it's much easier to do than researching the life and times of King Henry II etc. Perhaps there could be a separate music Wikipedia. In the scheme of things, Mariah Carey is a transient phenomenon. After she grows old there'll be nothing left. Pop music is visible, because it's on television, but doesn't change the world. -Ashley Pomeroy 12:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, encyclopedic. Kappa 13:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, must not allow precedent creep. A "Remixography" (a neologism in itself) is not a "discography". And discographys shouldn't have their own articles, anyway. Proto t c 14:21, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Obvious delete, per Mel.—Encephalon | ^ζ  14:35:30, 2005-08-31 (UTC)
• weak delete this is basically a meta-article. its an article about articles. yet....Roodog2k 16:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, if the title of the article is changed to a 'List of Official Remixes' instead of 'Remixography', then the debate over whether it is a discography or not could be settled. However, if some still believe that the article should be deleted, wouldn't that put into question other articles such as the 'Videography of Mariah Carey', where the information included could be found in detail in the individual singles articles, and the 'List of Songs By Mariah Carey', which can easily be found through articles based on each of her albums? Both of those articles also happen to be 'meta-articles'. On the matter of whether it is necessary of not, considering the miniscule impact made by pop music on the world, isn't a strong enough argument; it isn't the only thing that is unimportant, on a global scale, featured in this encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is a 'general' compendium of knowledge, that is not limited to 'worldly' information. At this moment of time, Mariah Carey, unarguably, is a well-known icon and if ever they'll be "nothing left" of her legacy, then the existence of not just this article, but a large portion of her encyclopedia entry could be debated. Surely, that itself would be unnecessary, wouldn't you think? Grey Pursuit 17:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

  This was the first edit by Grey Pursuit (talk · contribs). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

  What about it? OmegaWikipedia 04:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per WP:NOT. --Carnildo 23:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete echoing above (WP:NOT). Dottore So 23:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. looks like a personal research paper. --Rightsaidfred 01:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Among other reasons on why this article should stay, songs like "Vanishing" which were not singles do not have articles and the listing of their other versions will be lost. OmegaWikipedia 04:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this sould be covered in the song or album pages.--nixie 05:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per WP:NOT. —RaD Man (talk) 07:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Im gonna have to say delete. While the information is a bit useful, its also trivial, I dont think people will necessarily look in an encyclopedia to seek the remixes of an artist. Additionally, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminant collection of information

  Journalist ^C./ ^{Holla @ me!}

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.