Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of NME covers

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 no consensus. I think no consensus is the only possible close here, obviously therefore defaulting to keep. The !votes below are fairly split, with eight editors arguing for keep and ten for delete. Most who have commented here have provided at least somewhat valid rationales, which obviously is much more important than the number of !votes. The key argument on the delete side relates to WP:IINFO and the idea that this list is just a collection of not particularly notable info. Those in the keep camp argue that NME is highly notable and so are its covers (or at least they have been in the past), and also point to two similar lists (though the latter was only just created). Both of these positions have validity to them, and I do not see either achieving anything approaching consensus in the discussion below. Several delete commenters brought up the issue of sourcing, and while it is important to source each item in this list in some manner (preferably to reliable online sources that can be easily checked by readers and other editors), the lack of references is not a valid delete rationale. Finally, the lack of consensus now does not of course mean there cannot be one later on, and a future trip to AfD if editors still find this to be unencylopedic would not be unreasonable. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of NME covers

Never ending laundry list, trivial, unencyclopaedic, unreferenced, does not add anything of note or understanding to the existing main article. Any notable issues are already discussed in the NME article. Wikipedia is not a directory. A similar list, List of Classic Rock covers, was deleted unopposed recently with the PROD: "Completely trivial. While Classic Rock is a notable magazine, a list that describes each of it's covers is not." Artyline (talk) 01:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My view is that that - after a certain point - the notability of a list varies inversely with its length. This looks like wiki-as-web-host. Hairhorn (talk) 03:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Getting on the cover of the NME constitutes major recognition for musicians and this list gives a picture of how the bands that have been considered worthy of this recognition have changed over the years. Critical acclaim and importantce is of just as much encyclopedic interest as commercial success.--Michig (talk) 06:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:IINFO Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Michdig. No different than this list. Lugnuts (talk) 08:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. People want to know what stars were on front of NME. --Flashflash; 08:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a valid reason to keep, per WP:USEFUL. Artyline (talk) 12:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, for good or ill, NME is much more notable than Classic Rock or pretty much any other music magazine as a barometer of changing tastes and styles in popular music. yorkshiresky (talk) 17:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with User:Artyline, basically just a never-to-be-complete list with no encyclopedic value to itself. Better served by a category. JIP | Talk 18:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NME is really notable,such historical encyclopaedic information is also relevant Rirunmot (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This list fails to provide context or explanation, and importantly no references. As a historical tool it is unreliable. Artyline (talk) 05:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, massive list with no sources, no notability, and per WP:IINFO Knowitall (talk) 22:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Each entry in the list is sourced - the NME is a reliable source and certainly is regarding who appeared on the cover.--Michig (talk) 05:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an awkward one, it's the kind of article where those who don't care about music might say, "What's the point?", but the kind that is of vast use to those who do. The information is useful, perhaps it does verge on cruft, but it's a notable achievement. Esteffect (talk) 17:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notable for what? Lots of people appear on magazine covers. This list offers no context or understanding why. Artyline (talk)
  - It is a major achievement to make the cover of NME magazine in the world of music. You reference Classic Rock, which is a far less significant publication and doesn't warrant a list. As I'll noticed below, major magazines in other areas warrant lists, and the NME cover is a big deal in music. It almost verges on having an "award" sort of status, in fact, in recognising that a musician has hit the big time. A small snippet of context I can offer is that a decision in the 1980's to place The Smiths on the cover instead of Kajagoogoo vastly helped the beginnings of the indie genre, and without that exposure that genre may not have broken through as much as it has in the twenty years since. So it's a trend-setting cover (less so now than in the 80's, admittedly) that in the past has had a major impact upon musical tastes - at times its influence has been up there with radio and music television - and thus an archive listing is useful. Esteffect (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, as for the argument regarding references, I think it's safe to say that the reference is the magazine issue of the date stated within the article. I thought that would be pretty obvious. Also, I don't get what you mean by it offering no context. A lack of references isn't a valid reason for deletion, by the way. Esteffect (talk) 15:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - My final comment here to justify my reasoning is that NME is to music what Rolling Stone and Time magazine are to their respective areas. Here's the list of Rolling Stone covers, and here's the list of Time Magazine covers. I know my point here could be construed as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I think it's relevant here - It's a big deal to make the cover in the music world. Esteffect (talk) 15:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but your whole argument is just laughable. There is no way that NME is remotely comparable to Rolling Stone or Time magazine. In the 70s and early 80s it may have been, but since then it has completely lost whatever authoritative reputation it may have had. Getting on the cover of NME means nothing any more. And it's simply not true to say that putting the Smiths on the cover helped the indie genre. Indie music had a high public profile long before the Smiths came along, and in any case the growth of indie was the result of many different factors over a long period of time. The decision to place the Smiths on the cover of one issue of one music magazine had nothing to do with it. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 15:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to Richard's excellent reasoning, it should be pointed out that many of the covers from 1952 to the early 1980s were in fact ADVERTS, PAID for by record companies - there is no way many of these artists got there on notability alone. They were simply there to push a new product by the label, so they are not indicators of notability. Artyline (talk) 22:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"In the 70s and early 80s it may have been" supports my argument, Richardrj. I stated it isn't as influential now, but it definitely was, and by your logic we'd mayswell delete Woodrow Wilson because he's not been alive for ages. I stand by my argument that it's an influential and relevant achievement that is notable and should be documented. Esteffect (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Esteffect, i agree with you that an NME cover appearance means something, but I don't see why that means we need to an article that describes every single magazine cover from the 50s. If what you say about the Smiths and the emergence of indie is true, wouldn't information be better served as a paragraph in the NME article itself? indopug (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, As Britain's last weekly music magazine, NME is vital to gauge Young Britains music tastes. This article is also notable because of the way it illustrates the changing music tastes, giving a clear picture of the changing face of music.
- The above anonymous vote is users only edit on wikipedia. Artyline (talk) 01:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:IINFO and WP:NOTWEBHOST. If NME donates money to Wikimedia Foundation I change my vote. Algébrico (talk) 03:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 12:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. (I had previously tried to PROD it) I realise that an appearance on the magazine's front cover is often the first stab at fame for many an upcoming rock band, but that doesn't justify a trivial list of everybody who's ever appeared on the cover. If the main NME article can have a well-written paragraph about the front page, it'll be of much more value than this page. indopug (talk) 13:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NME covers are the subject of academic study and so are certainly notable. See sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notable covers are already mentioned in the main NME article thus making this list redundant. Artyline (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the main article's section on covers just redirects to this list, like its sections on awards and tours which redirect to similar spinoffs. If this list article is deleted then the data will be folded back into the main article. Deletion is not an appropriate editing tool when dealing with such a family of articles as merger is required to satisfy the licence. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not referring to the redirect, I'm talking about the main body of the NME article. Artyline (talk) 11:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is little about the covers elsewhere in the article. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just how is one page a "family of articles"? I think the truth is being stretched to the max there Col. Cradleofrock (talk) 01:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. NME covers are in themselves not noteworthy. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Completely trivial. While NME is a somewhat notable magazine, a list that describes each of it's covers is not. Cradleofrock (talk) 01:39, 29 June 2009 (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.