Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of recordings made at Abbey Road Studios
As creator of the list back in 2007, I specifically stated then that it was aimed at relieving https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_recordings_made_at_Abbey_Road_Studios&oldid=180236294 "the main article page ... of what is, in some cases, just PR hype for various artists who happen to have recorded there." This was https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abbey_Road_Studios&oldid=179909094 the version of "Abbey Road" at that time. The fact that the current version, many years later, is very similar to that same PR-use of Wikipedia that I tried to pre-empt is but a sad reflection and suggests that more effort needs to be put into ensuring Wp articles are encyclopaedic rather than simply eliminating these here pesky lists (which, in themselves, are pretty harmless and certainly more “objective” and, therefore, less subject to PR-related creativity than many "encyclopaedic" articles).As for this specific AfD, I’m afraid I have to disagree with the nominator’s final statement that the list does not meet any of the three purposes listed at :“'''Information''': The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists.” '''Comment:''' The list is structured chronologically.“'''Navigation''': Lists which contain internally linked terms (i.e., wikilinks) serve, in aggregate, as natural tables of contents and indexes of Wikipedia… If users have some general idea of what they are looking for but do not know the specific terminology, they could browse the lists of basic topics and more comprehensive lists of topics, which in turn lead to most if not all of Wikipedia's lists, which in turn lead to related articles…”. '''Comment:''' “... which in turn lead to… which in turn lead to related articles...”“'''Development''': Some lists are useful for Wikipedia development purposes. The lists of related topics give an indication of the state of Wikipedia, the articles that have been written, and the articles that have yet to be written. However, as Wikipedia is optimized for readers over editors,…”. '''Comment''': This list is “optimized for readers…”My understanding, as per my comments above, is that this list fully complies with each of the purposes. If I’m mistaken, please explain why this “list does not meet any purpose listed at ”.Likewise, the nominator’s statement that “Wikipedia is not a directory of every album or song that has been recorded at any particular studio”; that’s evident. But the idea is that the list is made up of those recordings considered sufficiently notable to have a dedicated article at Wikipedia, which I consider a rule of thumb observed for many, if not most lists.Regarding the statement that it is an “indiscriminate collection of info”, as the title very clearly states: this list is very specific (which means “not indiscriminate”). Any possible “indiscriminate” use that may stem from the fact that it is obviously open to future incorporations and/or items lacking. A “criticism” or, rather, fact easily applicable to just about any article at Wp, not to mention many of the lists here. The phrase “nothing is written in stone”, one of the great advantages to the whole Wikipedia “experience”, springs so easily to mind here.As for the statement “there seems to be a misperception about how recording at Abbey Road Studios is some sort of exclusive honor”, where is any “exclusive honor” implied or stated in this list? If a recording is considered notable enough to be included here at Wikipedia, why should it not be included in a list? I really find it hard to be more factual/objective than providing a simple list, in this case, chronological, for simplicity.I could continue answering more of the objections to keeping this list, but I fear I’ve used up more than my fair share of the space here, so will sign off here. Regards
— User:Technopat, 20:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:LISTPURP (Wikipedia:Manual of Style)