Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series (2nd nomination)
as an earlier discussion closed mere months ago by , which we have yet again this time around.  Anytime at least a dozen editors in good standing determine a subject is notable, the subject does not become less notable.  Renominations are not intended for articles that were previously kept, only those that were previously deleted.  For example, if we had a deletion discussion back in 1971 for Avatar (2009 film) that closed as delete as a hoax or something, well, okay that would be a reasonable close, but due to what happened in the past year, no serious editor would not contest that article despite the earlier discussion.  By contrast, 41 years from now, no serious editor will say we should delete the article that we thought should be kept now, because it has somehow become less notable.  Notability, as subjective and anti-encyclopedic of a concept as it is, only increases.  Indeed, if anything, the songs of ''Rock Band'' have only become more important since the previous discussion.  In any event, most of this article is unoriginal research as it is and can be sourced through reliable secondary sources including ''Kotaku'', which frequently features articles commenting on the weekly downloadable content, as well as magazine articles: “Rock Band’s Five Most Unexpectedly Rockin’ Downloadable Song,” ''PlayStation: The Official Magazine'' (January 2009): 58; “Rock Band’s Five Most Disappointingly Boring Downloadable Song,” ''PlayStation: The Official Magazine'' (January 2009): 58; “Rock Band DLC,” ''PlayStation: The Official Magazine'' 024 (October 2009): 55; etc.  That which is verified in multiple reliable sources in separate articles that not only list, but comment on the choice of specific songs, focusing on the songs specifically rather than on the game as a whole, meets any common sense or valid interpretation of Wikipedia's ever changing policies and guidelines, which is why no serious editor will post another bolded "delete" in this discussion after my post.  This article belongs on Wikipedia.  The only delete votes we are seeing are nothing more than  or "I don't know about it" or "It's just not important me", none of which are legitimate reasons for deletion, because there are no legitimate reasons.  This discriminate article that lists songs playable in a major game series on multiple systems that are verified and anaylzed in numerous reliable secondary sources on the web and in print is unquestionably wikipedic and passes our standards in pretty much every way possible.  As usual in a list discussion we such silly apples and oranges comparisons as songs (the major musical element of a game) compared with a hypothetical "List of Rock Band underwear, available on eBay" that not only would no one seriously suggest be created in the first place, but that no one would suggest because unlike this article, it is not something discussed in dozens of reliable secondary sources.  Or we wind up with the usually incivility by someone with neither knowledge nor interest in this topic dismissing others as mere "fanboys".  This article passes  and is consistent with Wikipedia:Five pillars|Wikipedia's First pillar, i.e. we are not just a general encyclopedia, but also an almanac, specialized encyclopedia, and gazetteer.  The purpose of this list is to cover an influential element of a major series that has relevance to not just the video game industry, but also the music industry.  Once someone says things like "go somewhere else," well, we can go somewhere else for an article on Napoleon as well, but that does not mean we should not also cover it here.  Sincerely
— User:A, 15:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:SNOW||WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:SALAT (Wikipedia:Snowball clause)