Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of songs about weather

I was able to identify seven distinct arguments in the discussion. (If you do not want to read the rather long reasoning behind my closure but are interested only in the closure itself, you may simply skip the numbered paragraphs.) They are:

1. Usefulness – Many of the comments on both sides included hints of (and I apologise in advance for the alphabet soup) WP:IDONTCARE, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:ILIKEIT, WP:INTERESTING, and WP:USEFUL. Since the usefulness of the lists is obviously in dispute, I discounted arguments based in their subjective value, irrespective of what course of action they recommended. To consider them would have required that I take a personal stance on the issue.
2. Wikipedia is not paper – One editor argued that the lists ought to be kept based on the principle that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This principle is most valid when it comes to pages whose encyclopedic suitability is often disputed (e.g., almanac-type lists), but it must also be considered in light of the principle that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
3. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information – For the most part, those arguing to delete the lists argued that they constitute an "indiscriminate collection of information". This argument was challenged with comments like "I do not see where WP:NOT is violated in any of the lists" and "I fail to see why they violate WP:NOT". As far as I could tell, these challenges were never answered. That is, at no time did anyone specify which of the 10 points listed at WP:NOT#IINFO these lists violated. Of course, a consensus can form at AfD to delete an article that is not explicitly covered by the provision, but I do not think that is applicable here. The arguments to delete based in "indiscriminate information" were, in many cases, underdeveloped and usually only asserted that the lists constitute an indiscriminate collection of facts without stating why this was so.
4. Wikipedia is not a directory – A smaller number of editors argued to delete based on the principle that the entries in the lists are "loosely associated" (see e.g., [1][2]). This argument was developed more fully in the discussion and presents a stronger case for deleting the lists.
5. Wikipedia:No original research – That a song makes mention of a particular concept does not automatically make the song about that concept. The reference to the conecpt can be a mere trivial mention or may be part of a methaphor (see e.g., [3]). The response to this point consisted of an acknowledgement of the problem, but insistence that the problem is correctible (by, for instance, refocusing the lists).
6. Precedent – Although both sides invoked "precedent", I could ascertain no clear precedent about what to do with these types of lists. Previous AfD nominations, ranging back to at least 2005, have resulted in "delete" outcomes in some cases and "keep" outcomes in others (see here). In light of this, the fact that nominations should be considered separately as each may produce a distinct consensus, and that consensus can change, I have given little weight to arguments of precedent. The only clear precedent seems to be that a bundled nomination involving more than a few articles will be problematic (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about drugs). This brings us to the last argument.
7. Mass nomination – Several editors argued that the nature of this mass nomination did not allow them to effectively evaluate each list on its merits. This is a serious issue as it may hinder the development of an educated, policy-based consensus. The final comment in the discussion, by MrFizyx, is particularly effective at highlighting this point. However, it is also important to keep in mind that mass nominations are not expressly forbidden and are often appropriate when the articles in question are very similar.

I doubt that any particular closure will satisfy both points of view, so I've opted for the second-best option of devising a compromise that leaves both sides equally unsatisfied, :) and manages to reflect what I think is the consensus reached. I will delete all lists in this nomination except those that at least one person in this discussion recommended keeping or that have survived a previous deletion discussion. These are closed as no consensus and may be renominated at any time (I'd advise separate nominations for each). If I accidentally delete any list that meets one of these two criteria, please let me know of my error so that I may restore it. I am also more than happy to discuss the restoration or userfication of any deleted list if at least one editor thinks it can be improved to address the "not a directory" and original research concerns raised in the discussion and intends to improve and merge or reintroduce it.

I realise that this sort of compromise will probably be disliked by both sides. Those arguing to delete have on their side WP:NOT and WP:NOR. Those arguing to keep make valid points about the improvability of the lists and the problematic nature of a mass nomination. To close the discussion as "delete all" would, I think, ignore these points. To close the discussion as "no consensus, relist separately" would be inefficient and would result in many editors repeating essentially identical arguments over 26 new AfDs. I hope that I have found a balance that, even if it does not satisfy anyone, will be acceptable to most.

Note 1: I will note which lists are to be retained per "no consensus" shortly. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done

Note 2: In the spirit of this change to our deletion policy, I will not start procedural renominations for the remaining lists. Anyone who believes they ought to be deleted may do so at any time. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]