Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of concerts in Adelaide

Add links
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. Mainly, there is nothing inherently notable about the fact that a concert happens to occur in Adelaide. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of concerts in Adelaide

[edit]
List of concerts in Adelaide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe this will be a list difficult to mantain Melaen (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why? Is this just your personal opinion? Or do you have some basis for your opinion? Please note that your unsupported opinion is not sufficient reason for placing a PROD on an article. (I also suggest you read WP:I just don't like it.)
  • I created the article, and I and others will be maintaining it. It is our opinion that "difficult to mantain" is not a problem, and is not an issue. What more can I say until I know the reason for your nomination?
  • Are you planning to maintain it? If so, please explain. If not, why intervene?
  • Also, please see below. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've seen that argument before "it's not one of the example subpoints so why should it be deleted?". The main point of WP:NOTDIR: "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed". A list of concerts in Adelaide, past, present and future, is already stretching that. The rest are illustrations. But just to make the case: Point 1 List of ... loosely associated topics. What does a 1973 Status Quo concert in one venue has to do with a 2010 Wolfsmother concert at another venue? Nothing. The fact that they both came to the same town is that one loose association. Point 4 Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, gives example of upcoming or current programming, but it applies to past programming of no historical significance. Again, what is the particular significance of every concert listed? Seems to me like listcruft.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've seen that argument before "it's not one of the example subpoints so why should it be deleted?".
It seems like a reasonable approach to me. Why do you have a problem with that approach? Please explain. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The main point of WP:NOTDIR: "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed".
Well yes, but there's more to it than that. You seem to have completely ignored my statements below. Pdfpdf (talk)
A list of concerts in Adelaide, past, present and future, is already stretching that.
Pardon?
First of all, where does the "Future" come from? There are NO future concerts in the list.
I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be obtuse, but I don't understand what point you are trying to make. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The rest are illustrations.
The rest of what are illustrations of what? Sorry, I don't understand. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But just to make the case: Point 1 List of ... loosely associated topics. What does a 1973 Status Quo concert in one venue has to do with a 2010 Wolfsmother concert at another venue? Nothing.
Pardon? What's the name of the page? "List of concerts in Adelaide". They were both concerts in Adelaide. Your logic makes no sense to me. Please clarify. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that they both came to the same town is that one loose association.
Pardon? What's the name of the page? "List of concerts in Adelaide". They were both concerts in Adelaide. Your logic makes no sense to me. Please clarify. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Point 4 Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, gives example of upcoming or current programming, but it applies to past programming of no historical significance. Again, what is the particular significance of every concert listed? Seems to me like listcruft.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I don't understand. Please clarify. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - please when you reply, do not cut my original comment into pieces like this, it makes it really hard to read what I was saying and separate it from your replies. Second, my point remains that it is loosely associated. One issue is that the individual concerts are not notable, none of them have an article, none of them had coverage beyond routine. Point 4 also stands directory entries, electronic program guide. It may not be the current schedule as the example, but it is nothing more than a bunch of past unnotable concerts put together, i.e. the past schedule. WP:LSC (you have a "complete list" that is not short and full of non-notable entries), WP:SALAT and WP:NMUSIC (the concert tour section in particular) are other guidelines to be considered.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 10:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - please when you reply, do not cut my original comment into pieces like this, it makes it really hard to read what I was saying and separate it from your replies.
Fair enough. My apologies.Pdfpdf (talk) 11:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second, my point remains that it is loosely associated.
Yes, I know your point is that you believe they are "loosely associated". However, as I said/implied previously, I don't understand what you mean by that.Pdfpdf (talk) 11:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One issue is that the individual concerts are not notable, none of them have an article, none of them had coverage beyond routine.
True. (I'm not sure why that is relevant, but your statement is accurate.)
Point 4 also stands directory entries, electronic program guide. It may not be the current schedule as the example, but it is nothing more than a bunch of past unnotable concerts put together, i.e. the past schedule.
Not really. It is quite a bit more than that - NOT "nothing more". e.g. It is a sortable amalgamated list which facilitates simple access, in the one place, of information that is currently spread over a number of pages, not sortable, and not accessible. This allows analysis that the current state of events prohibits.
WP:LSC (you have a "complete list" that is not short and full of non-notable entries),
Well, the page is still under construction ...
  • By-the-way, I notice WP:LSC mentions: Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of minor characters in Dilbert or List of paracetamol brand names.
WP:SALAT and WP:NMUSIC (the concert tour section in particular) are other guidelines to be considered.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 10:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the links. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WP:LSC does mention examples where entries in the list fail notability criteria. One is List of minor characters in Dilbert. This type of article is a spinoff of a larger work of fiction which is considerable enough to warrant a list of minor character that can't be in the main article due to length concerns. They also have description of these characters. Notability criteria regarding that type of article can be found in WP:FICT. The List of paracetamol brand names I would consider trivial (see: WP:LISTCRUFT) and would probably vote for deletion were it put for AfD. Also, while the sorting possibilities for the article currently under AfD are neat, it is still exceedingly trivial and offers no real encyclopedic content. It's a cross-listing of venues, bands and dates, with a handful of notes for locally notable entries. It feels more like an Excel worksheet than an article or a navigational list.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 22:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:LSC does mention examples where entries in the list fail notability criteria. One is List of minor characters in Dilbert. This type of article is a spinoff of a larger work of fiction which is considerable enough to warrant a list of minor character that can't be in the main article due to length concerns. They also have description of these characters. Notability criteria regarding that type of article can be found in WP:FICT. The List of paracetamol brand names I would consider trivial (see: WP:LISTCRUFT) and would probably vote for deletion were it put for AfD.
Make up your mind please.
In one post you say: "Look at WP:LSC". So I do, and I quote you a section of what it says. Next post you say that the example in WP:LSC is WP:LISTCRUFT.
Do you want me to look at WP:LSC or don't you? Pdfpdf (talk) 05:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, while the sorting possibilities for the article currently under AfD are neat, it is still exceedingly trivial and offers no real encyclopedic content. It's a cross-listing of venues, bands and dates, with a handful of notes for locally notable entries. It feels more like an Excel worksheet than an article or a navigational list.
Sorry, what's your point? Again, you seem to be contradicting yourself. Sorry, I'm confused. Pdfpdf (talk) 05:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - my point remains the article under AfD offers no encyclopedic content. Every single rock concert in Adelaide, in the form of a table of venue, band and date is not notable or encyclopedic. They are not notable individidually, they are not notable collectively. Every city of a decent size will have a number of venues where concerts by bands with Wiki articles happen on a regular basis. That WP:LSC allows for list of non-notable entries does not mean it allows for any list of non-notable entries.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 11:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. In answer to your implied question, speed of construction has slowed since the PROD was placed - it will be under construction once again when the PROD is removed. I see little point on doing lots of work on it whilst it's under discussion. Further, this discussion is using up time that I would otherwise be using to continue the construction. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You do not appear to have looked at the list - it is obvious that it is NOT "a list of upcoming concerts". Please remove your delete nomination. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you read WP:NOTDIR #4 you'll see that section I quoted is listed as an example of things to not do, not as an all-encompassing list that allows anything not on it. As I read it this fits that example, which is why I explained it in my delete comment. Upon further consideration, I'm adding WP:LISTCRUFT to my reasoning. It's up to the closing admin to weigh the reasons and decide how to proceed. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 01:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you read WP:NOTDIR #4 you'll see that section I quoted is listed as an example of things to not do, not as an all-encompassing list that allows anything not on it.
Yes ...
Section 4 says, and I quote:
Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, et cetera, although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules may be acceptable. Likewise an article on a business should not contain a list of all the company's patent filings. Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article.
As I said or implied before, secton 4 is obviously IRRELEVANT to this situation. Please remove your delete nomination. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, it seems to be to be relevant, which is why I quoted it. And it's pretty WP:UNCIVIL to challenge everyone on their reasoning and to call for removing their comments. That's not how this works. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, it seems to be to be relevant, which is why I quoted it.
Yes, I know you said it before. That's why I asked you WHY you think it seems to be relevant. You are yet to explain, despite two requests for clarification. Here's the third request: Why do you say it's relevant? Pdfpdf (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And it's pretty WP:UNCIVIL to challenge everyone on their reasoning and to call for removing their comments.
Well, that might be the case if that is what I'd done. But I didn't. And I haven't. And I haven't called for EVERYONE to remove their comments. In fact, I haven't asked ANYONE to remove ANY of their comments. So please, do NOT attribute to me things I haven't done.
I have asked YOU (not "everyone") to remove YOUR "delete nomination" - not your comments. So please, do NOT attribute to me things I haven't done.
Pdfpdf (talk)
That's not how this works.
No, that is NOT how it is supposed to work. Please choose your words more carefully. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I read it this fits that example,
Hmmmm. As anybody else would read it, it bears no relationship to the example.
Please exactly explain WHY your conclusion is relevant. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone's conclusion is relevant here. It seems like you might not understand how AfD works. We all come here, check out the article, and we're SUPPOSED to not just !vote, but to explain why we came to such a conclusion. It's not supposed to be a giant argument with each editor about getting them to remove their conclusions. It's not a vote, it's a question of policy and how people interpret it. It's not personal. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone's conclusion is relevant here. It seems like you might not understand how AfD works. We all come here, check out the article, and we're SUPPOSED to not just !vote, but to explain why we came to such a conclusion.
Yes, that's how I thought it was supposed to work. But all I see is people making unjustified, unsupported and unexplained claims. When I say: "I don't understand, please explain", I get NO useful response. (c.f. I've asked you certain questions three times - you have yet to make ANY attempt to answer ANY of them. On the other hand, I have responded to ALL questions and comments, and NOBODY has reacted. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not supposed to be a giant argument with each editor about getting them to remove their conclusions.
It isn't. Please stop mis-representing me. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a vote, it's a question of policy and how people interpret it. It's not personal.
Agreed. But when I say: "I don't understand. Please explain." No one does. They just repeat themselves. If I didn't understand them first time, what makes them think I'll understand them second time? Pdfpdf (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
which is why I explained it in my delete comment.
Sorry, I don't understand. Which bit of which delete comment explains what? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further consideration, I'm adding WP:LISTCRUFT to my reasoning.
Why? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's up to the closing admin to weigh the reasons and decide how to proceed.
Yes, thank goodness! Pdfpdf (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The criteria for the list will cause it to become unmanageably large. The AEC website lists twelve upcoming concerts for October, and that's only one venue. At only 12 concerts a month, we're looking at 144 new entries every year for just on venue! If all 5 extant venues have about the same number of events, and nothing is ever added for the numerous clubs and small venues, that's over 700 entries a year. (And if we're going to include a list like this for Adelaide, why not New York or London? Clearly impractical!) The list is arbitrary and cannot be maintained. Pburka (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is nothing inherently notable about concerts in Adelaide. It is just another day at the office for the performer. The current list severally fails WP:NOTDIR: it is a repository of loosely associated topics, non-encyclopedic cross-categorization, and attempts to be a complete exposition of all possible details. The list could never hope to be exhaustive. It is another over-ambitious example of WP:LISTCRUFT. WWGB (talk) 00:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lookin thru the list I see no entries with their own blue linked article. Remove non notable concerts from this list we appear to have an empty list. No need for an empty list. (an under construction tag does not exempt article from wikipedia standards). (what makes a concert, is The Joe Blo Xperince concert in John Citizens backyard eligible for this list?) (WP:LISTCRUFT. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable.) duffbeerforme (talk) 11:18, 20 September 2010 (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_concerts_in_Adelaide&oldid=1254680310"