Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of recordings with a prominent flanging effect

List of recordings with a prominent flanging effect

List of recordings with a prominent flanging effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Predominantly unsourced WP:Original research, and WP:LISTCRUFT. Oli Filth^(talk) 21:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - the article doesn't have an AfD tag on it. The Transhumanist 22:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Thanks for spotting! Oli Filth^(talk) 22:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, or merge into flanging - I found the list very interesting - this is the very type of feature that puts Wikipedia above all other encyclopedias. It's organic. The list could be very useful for someone studying flanging effects in music, and therefore is not listcruft. And it appears some work has been done on gathering references. Also, the songs themselves are a source for verifiability. Anyone can check a song for flanging, and songs are easily accessible in most cases. It's analogous to quoting a movie, and citing the movie as the source for the quote. This list should be kept, or added to the article flanging as "Examples of recordings with a prominent flanging effect". Is there any chance of getting permission from the publishers to present sound clips from these songs? That would really make the list useful. The Transhumanist 22:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Unfortuantely, WP:INTERESTING is not a reason for keeping an article.

I see your point on it not being cruft, but due to the haphazard way the list has been compiled, it seems almost trivial (not least because there's no criteria for how notable a song has to be to be included), so I stand by my opinion.

The songs are not a source for verifiability; in many cases it's open to interpretation as to whether a particular effect is flanger, chorus, phaser, echo, or just a trick of microphone placement; see some of the discussions on the article's talk page. Any such inference without a reliable source is pure OR.

As for merging into Flanging, this list was originally part of that article, but was split out after a discussion there; see Talk:Flanging#Recordings with a prominent flanging effect. Incidentally, that conversation gives an example of the "open to interpetation" I refer to, as well as echoing my opinion that it's crufty. Oli Filth^(talk) 22:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as original deprodder despite the concerns I raised on the talkpage, and my general dislike of lists. This is a sourced (partially, but the remainder could be sourced by a dedicated editor with a copy of The Rough Guide to Music), interesting and useful list. (Before anyone starts quoting ATA at me, can I remind them that that's a personal essay not a policy.) As TTH says, this kind of list is one of the reasons Wikipedia shines while the wannabes fall by the wayside; something that will never be included in Britannica or even Knol, but is potentially very valuable to someone researching the subject. I'm baffled by the use of WP:LISTCRUFT as a nomination reason - quite aside from the fact that LC is, again, a personal essay, this is the type of list specifically not considered as "listcruft" in that essay; a parent article exists, and the list would be disproportionately long as part of the parent article. — iridescent 22:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I find the list encyclopaedic for the reasons pointed out by The Transhumanist. Although there's likely a component of original research (which is why I tagged the article as such), with only a couple hours of research, I was able to cite a dozen of the entries, leading me to believe that many more of the entries could easily be cited as well; I just haven't had the time to continue work on the list. dissolve^talk 22:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Regarding your comment on finding sources, fair enough. But is anyone likely to do this? The article has been tagged as OR for months, and only 12 out of 80 or so have had sources found (no disrespect intended to the effort you put in, though!). I guess we could remove all the unsourced items, but that hardly leads a very useful, encyclopaedic, or comprehensive list. Oli Filth^(talk) 22:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)