Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FIFA series soundtracks

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 delete, after a surprisingly in-depth discussion. Analyzing the discussion leads to the conclusion that there may be an decent article to write on FIFA series soundtracks, but this version is too much of a directory.--Kubigula (talk) 03:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FIFA series soundtracks

FIFA series soundtracks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Indiscriminate list of every music track from each game of the series. No references either WP:N, WP:V. Please also see the related AfD for FIFA Street series soundtracks. Miremare 15:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Miremare 15:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - this article is not, as the nomitator seems to think, an indiscriminate list. The topics are closely associated, the subject is notable (the FIFA games are obviously notable, and who have played them without noticing the music?), and the list is 100 % objective. In other words, no reason to delete this. Sources should be added, though. 96T 23:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: The FIFA series is notable. The soundtracks, however, are not. Without independent sources to prove that individual soundtracks or individual tracks within soundtracks are notable, lists like these shouldn't exist on Wikipedia. --Scottie_theNerd 15:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The games may be notable. The individual elements? Not so much. Is there some evidence that this particular aspect -- in such detail -- has been written about by reliable sources anywhere? Probably a rhetorical question, but still... --Calton | Talk 00:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge - Sort the soundtracks into each game article if not already done so. - Vicer 13:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Transwikied All tracks are transwikied to the respective pages under the games in the Encyclopedia Gamia So if it gets deleted check there--Cs california 10:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan 00:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Listcruft. Half of the linked songs are redlinks anyway, so it's not really notable. Perhaps on the songs that do have articles can have a note about its inclusion in the game, or this can be turned into a category. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 14:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:LC points 1 and 3. Stifle (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment point 1 is highly subjective, while point 3 does not apply in this situation (this list is nothing more of an indiscriminate list than an album tracklisting is, and not a FAQ, plot summary, lyrics database, statistic or news report, which are the only things considered not to belong on Wikipedia per WP:IINFO). 96T 14:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't think the list at WP:IINFO is exhaustive, not least because otherwise it would violate itself... Stifle (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Obviously, but claiming that a soundtrack listing should be deleted still has little backing in the WP:IINFO policy. 96T 17:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
        • What makes this not an indiscriminate list? Where's the notability of the subject to justify it? That Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information applies perfectly well to this - merely being true does not make it worthy of inclusion. As for album tracklistings, they are contained within articles about the album, not as articles in their own right. Miremare 19:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
          • This is not an indiscriminate because it has a very clear and defined limit - songs that appear in the FIFA games. An indiscriminate list has no such limits. 96T 19:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
            • It may not be indiscriminate in that it's not, for example, List of tracks that happen to be in both FIFA and my CD collection but it lists everything regardless of relative importance or notability, therefore it's indiscriminate in its scope. It's also a list for a list's sake, therefore also indiscriminate in a broader sense. But notability is the crux of the matter here anyway. Miremare 19:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
              • United Nations member states also lists everything, but that doesn't make it an indiscriminate list. And I still think this is notable because music is such an important element in the highly notable FIFA series. 96T 19:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
                • United Nations member states is a little more important and notable than FIFA music. Any omission in that would be unacceptable, as the group and its constituent entities are all independently highly notable, and again, that list is part of a larger article. In contrast, FIFA series soundtracks are an unimportant part of the games in that they barely affect any aspect of it. The article demonstrates no notability and notability is not inherited from the FIFA series itself; it must be established seperately with multiple reliable independent sources providing significant coverage to the subject. Miremare 21:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
                  • I understand what you mean, and I understand that there are notability issues here, but my main point is that this article can't be deleted per WP:IINFO because it isn't an indiscriminate list. 96T 21:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
                    • Other than in the ways I mentioned, you mean? Miremare 22:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Actually, to respond to an earlier point, there are independent coverage for the soundtracks on sites like IGN, articles dealing solely with the soundtrack. matt91486 22:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Good point. I did a quick search, and found, among other hits, [1], [2], [3], [4] ... 96T 13:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
    • OK, but you'll also need some non-ign.com sources (multiple are required) to establish notability. But even if this is done, this article is still just a list (and an indiscriminate one in at least two ways) of every song featured in the series, which is not at all appropriate for an encyclopedia article. At best, notable songs from the soundtracks should be mentioned on the individual game pages, not collected here in their entirety. Miremare 17:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete', listcruft. Fin©™ 09:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Countering deletion arguments above:

1. Notability has been established per the links above, and quick Google searches for FIFA+soundtrack turn up lots of other non trivial coverage by reliable sources. See: [5] [6] [7] for some examples - the actual coverage is a lot larger. The very fact that these reliable sources devote news items and articles to the soundtracks of this series is extraordinary, as that is beyond the normal coverage any game's sountrack would get. To counter the "notability is not inherited" argument, this coverage in reliable sources was related to, but independent of, the FIFA games themselves. The soundtracks were the primary topics for these articles, and as such are notable.
2. Countering the nominator's argument of the WP:V violation: in an article about a notable topic for which there are a lot of sources available to possibly source it, this argument is no reason for deletion per WP:PROBLEM.
3. This list is not indiscriminate in any way. The boundaries of the topic are very well defined (only those specific music tracks of this series are included), and the contents are not "thrown together" or "jumbled". The term indiscriminate certainly does not apply here. Possibly the nominator meant that the scope of the list is too broad, but the size of the article (meeting WP:SIZE) and the readability of the article argue otherwise. To employ the slippery slope fallacy consciously, I wonder which lists would not be indiscriminate according to the nominator's standards. A response including a comparison of "discriminateness" between this list and such an apparently discriminate list would be appreciated.

An argument for keeping, independent of the arguments why it should not be deleted:

• This list serves the purpose of providing readers a comprehensive list of soundtracks for notable games, of which the soundtracks are part (independently notable too). This list is used for comparison between the soundtracks of the different games, and allows for the reader to find more in-depth information related to the critical discussion of those soundtracks in the articles about the games and the series itself. It is a fine example of why lists exist on Wikipedia at all.

The above covers all arguments used for deletion, I believe, leaving no arguments standing. If I missed a point, feel free to drop me a note and I will see if I concur. If this is the case, I will most probably change my opinion on the issue, or address the points of concern. User:Krator (t c) 23:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply Krator, I'm quite surprised at your stance on this. As you're aware there's been various discussions at WT:CVG about whether things like lists of guns in FPSs and lists of cars in racing games are appropriate, the majority (including you, I seem to remember) consider them inappropriate. How listing music tracks, in a dedicated article, for a series of games to which music is even less relevent than guns or cars to their respective genres, is baffling to me. Being true and verifiable is no reason for inclusion. Anyway, interpretations of the word "indiscriminate" aside, there's still no reason that the most notable of these shouldn't be mentioned (rather than listed) on the games' individual pages rather than here - this is a list for a list's sake and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. You may say that the inclusion of certain guns or cars are not notable, whereas FIFA soundtracks are because there are sources, but I've seen articles on these sites on things like cars in Gran Turismo 3 and guns in Black (video game), and various other minutiae churned out because people are interested in reading about the features of an upcoming game. ign.com on weapons in Halo 3? teamxbox.com on weapons in Halo 3? Does this mean weapons in Halo 3 should be listed? How about ign.com on cars in Project Gotham Racing 3 (considering List of cars in Project Gotham Racing 2 was deleted, I wouldn't rate its chances)? According to you, no. And rightly so, as these things are all just part of the coverage of the games as a whole. Sites like ign, gamershell etc dedicate articles to practically anything to do with a game before release, especially the more popular ones, depending on what the publisher announces. Why does the fact that they reprint EA's press releases occasionally make an encyclopedia article in this case? Miremare 03:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Your surprise on my stance is probably due to the fact that it is not a stance on principle concerning lists of elements in a video game. Lists are generally bad, but when sources specifically discuss elements of a game in a non-trivial way, we should not delete articles based upon those sources. Let me restate that, as it is the crux of my stance. Your analogy with weapons and car lists is an interesting one, and you are indeed correct that I am firmly against inclusion of those lists in Wikipedia. Why this one, then?

First and foremost, in this specific case, I was unsatisfied by the arguments for deletion, and as a big fan of sound arguments, I had to refute the arguments used here. The proper argument for deletion of this article would be excessive detail. One could quite conclusively argue for a deletion of this article because a list has too much detail, and that critical discussion is the limit for Wikipedia's coverage on the topic. Your reference to WP:NOT#DIRECTORY is the first reference to this argument in the debate.

Secondly, I believe that soundtracks are more worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia than weapons or cars by definition. The sound is a distinct and separate part of every video game, while for example weapons and cars are part of the gameplay. Most of the review sites that use composite scores based on specific areas of the game use the sound as a distinct point.

Thirdly, this list is composed of real world elements, instead of fictional cars or weapons. Many of these elements have Wikipedia articles of their own. One could conclusively argue for the inclusion of links to all artists and/or songs featured in a game to be needed for an article to be comprehensive and per WP:BTW. Your argument that every article should discuss the soundtracks is valid and true, but the article about the series should discuss them as well. For this purpose, a list is the best format - see for example Dow Jones Industrial Average#Companies comprising the DJIA for another list which is in that format purely because the format is the best for conveying the information. In fact, this reasoning applies to just about every list in Wikipedia. It is also true that your arguments why this list is a directory applies to every list as well. Take a look at a few random lists from WP:FL, and try to argue if it would not be possible for the elements in that list to be discussed in prose in individual articles instead.

To conclude, I will add that a general trend of "lists of video game elements are bad" is a dangerous development, as every list should considered for its own merit. Many are not valid, true. But, as we can see from the above debate, it seems quite unclear what constitutes a directory or game guide and what does not. This article is an example of a list worthy of keeping. User:Krator (t c) 11:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I admit the original deletion argument was a bit rough around the edges, maybe because I thought it was as good as closed from the off. But I'm afraid, based on your above post, I still don't quite understand why you believe this list should be kept and others not. That the list comprises real-world elements is another thing that we discussed at WT:CVG, and in fact many video game lists do seem to comprise real world elements - such as the above mentioned car lists. I can't remember for sure, but I'm pretty positive that the "List of cars in Project Gotham Racing 2" would have had a blue link in every case, what with the game featuring well known models and manufacturers (in fact, it did: here it is). Same for lists of tracks in racing games or lists of teams or leagues in sports games, or lists of weapons in shooters where real-world ones are featured.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average article is different, I believe, just as the United Nations member states mentioned somewhere above, because it is important in these articles that the lists are complete, whereas in a case like this, and indeed with most video game lists, completeness is never necessary, unless it's "List of games by developer X" or something similar, but anything from inside a game, you don't need to be so specific about, it's just - to knowingly use a contentious word - crufty. I'm not backing this up with policy or something, that's just where I believe the line should be drawn. I believe opinion on video game lists basically comes down to whether or not there's anything special or notable about the items in question in the context of the game itself, and with music I don't see how there is, especially in this case; EA have simply licenced some tracks that they thought appropriate and that were available at the right price. Sound is indeed a distinct part of every game and one that is often rated itself in composite review scores, but so is gameplay, and that we don't tell people how to play games is already well established. You seem to agree in a way, or at least not disagree, with WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, though it doesn't sway you, could you elaborate on that? Miremare 14:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, this list does not violate WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, because of the arguments in my previous note ("Second" and "Third" points specifically). Your analogy with cars in racing lists is incorrect, because of the subtle difference that cars in racing games are fictitious representations of real world elements, while the soundtracks are real world elements in themselves. This subtle difference is also recognised by Wikipedia's policy on "In Popular Culture" sections. The general consensus is that when a mention in popular culture does not particularly revolve around the subject of the article, such a mention should not be written about in the article. An appearance in a racing game should not appear in the article about a car. To contrast, in articles about songs, the medium(s) it has been distributed on are always included, and if included in a notable video game, the article about the song should mention it.

To my argument that sound is a distinct part of the video game, your response is again an analogy, this time with gameplay being a distinct part as well, and that we evidently do not include lists of gameplay elements. The difference here is that the list of gameplay elements usually excluded from Wikipedia are relatively much more detailed and "lists for their own sake" than soundtracks. A list of tracks quite accurately describes the whole sound aspect of a game, while a list of for example racing cars describes only a tiny part of the gameplay. For example, lists of racing tracks, arcade mode levels, etc. are equally detailed lists of gameplay elements. Furthermore, I point towards my very first argument for keeping at the top of this discussion, noting the particular purpose of this list. The fact that the list covers a series, and not a single game, adds to the value of this list as well. User:Krator (t c) 17:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't explain why soundtracks being real-world, as apposed to representations of real world, is important and why such a distinction should be made. It seem odd to me that you say lists of cars and racetracks describe only a "tiny part of the gameplay", when soundtracks are completely irrelevant to the gameplay and indeed have no impact on the game itself. The cars and tracks at least make a difference to the game whereas the soundtracks make none. FIFA 98's soundtrack I admit could be seen as notable, and should definitely be covered in its article, as it was pretty much unheard of at the time for a game to include licensed music, but it's the norm nowadays. This seems like an arbitrary distinction, claiming that ign sources justify a soundtrack list, but the same ign sources cannot justify a car list..? Miremare 19:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The argument is detoriating, and this will most probably be my last comment on this page. I believe I have sufficiently defended my points, with sufficient sound arguments, though they may lack the rhetoric to convince you. The above note contains quite a lot of distinct statements, so I will dissect it and respond one by one.

• "This doesn't explain why soundtracks being real-world, as opposed to representations of real world, is important and why such a distinction should be made."

Copy pasted from above: "... the subtle difference that cars in racing games are fictitious representations of real world elements, while the soundtracks are real world elements in themselves. This subtle difference is also recognised by Wikipedia's policy on "In Popular Culture" sections. The general consensus is that when a mention in popular culture does not particularly revolve around the subject of the article, such a mention should not be written about in the article. An appearance in a racing game should not appear in the article about a car. To contrast, in articles about songs, the medium(s) it has been distributed on are always included, and if included in a notable video game, the article about the song should mention it."

• "It seem odd to me that you say lists of cars and racetracks describe only a "tiny part of the gameplay", when soundtracks are completely irrelevant to the gameplay and indeed have no impact on the game itself."

My point is: A list of soundtracks ("sound elements") goes a long way to describe the sound of a game, while lists of cars or racetracks ("gameplay elements") or whatever describe only a tiny part of the gameplay. Note that your last statement is purely your own opinion. Your statements that boil down to "sound is a trivial part of video games" are controversial and should surely not be a reason for deletion. Reliable sources argue otherwise - not only the articles linked above, but for the general topic of sound and video games, one can find many examples. Interviews with composers, and even quite some articles on Google scholar.

• This seems like an arbitrary distinction, claiming that ign sources justify a soundtrack list, but the same ign sources cannot justify a car list..?

I have never claimed that the IGN sources alone justify a car list, and I have never claimed they would justify a car list. The argument based on those sources is simply: the notability concerns used for deletion here are invalid, which (as it seems from a lack of response on that point) was quite conclusive. But, there is more to inclusion than being notable, namely the "What Wikipedia is not" policy so frequently named in our brief discussion above. If a car list would be up for deletion tomorrow, given that it would not be an extraordinary one with special merit, I would argue for deletion not because of a lack of sources (as you claim I would), but because of the "Wikipedia is not a directory" argument. That argument is the basis for "Listcruft", a more commonly used argument. User:Krator (t c) 20:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

1. "in articles about songs, the medium(s) it has been distributed on are always included, and if included in a notable video game, the article about the song should mention it."

Yes, I know what you said, I just don't see what it has to do with this article. I'm not saying don't mention FIFA in the articles about the songs, or the songs in the articles about the games, I'm saying FIFA soundtracks simply don't prove any more notable than any of the other examples of game lists that sites such as ign (note that I wasn't referring to only ign, but all the other such sites previously mentioned too) come up with, as these are the only sources we have, none of which discuss "FIFA soundtracks" as an actual subject in its own right, but simply list individual soundtracks as their details become available from the publisher. This is justification for writing about each on in the game articles, but there is no justification that I can see for devoting a whole article for this. There is no benefit to having these games listed together; there is no connection between the soundtracks of each one whatsoever, which, one could argue, makes this a fairly indiscriminate list. Whatever, this is still just a list for a list's sake.

2. That the music has no impact on the gameplay of FIFA may sound like my own opinion if you've never played the games, but it's a fact. The music in question plays during the menu screens of each game, when there is by definition no gameplay happening. During the gameplay itself, there is the noise of the crowd, the TV-style commentary, occasional noises from the players and the thump of the ball being kicked. There's no music at all during the gameplay - this isn't a Guitar Hero situation where the music has relevance to the game itself, it's quite the opposite.

3. That's not what I said, I said that you're saying these sources justify a music list but do not justify a car list, which is where the arbitrary distinction comes in. That a car list should be deleted if it isn't "an extraordinary one with special merit" is fine, but where is the extraordinaryness or special merit here? Regarding notability, my response was that anything can be considered notable if ign etc are what we're using as sources, because they regularly report on such minor game details before release of the game in question, but that does not these details automatically worth of their own articles. Your argument seems to rest on this distinction between real-world and representation of real-world, which, to all intents and purposes makes not a jot of difference - these lists, whether cars, guns, music, or whatever, are still minor elements of the games and it seems a little disingenuous to be insisting on such a major difference between the importance of gameplay elements and music. Which is more important to you in a game? Miremare 21:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

As I don't have the time to react on any of the others right now, I will briefly respond to #2 with a simple statement - Wikipedia does not only cover the gameplay of a game, but all notable aspects of a game, including development, reception, and indeed, sound. User:Krator (t c) 22:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

And it's up to us to judge the importance or relevance of each aspect of each game when reporting on it and giving it the WP:WEIGHT it deserves. As I've said above, I agree with you that we should report on the soundtracks, just not in the form of a list of questionable value that groups them all together for no real reason. I might also mention that series of soundtrack albums are not listed in their entirety, but linked to their own pages, such as this. Miremare 23:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I really don't understand why this is a notable information. My opinion was formed only by the info written the article and the nomination. I didn't full read the dialogue between User:Miremare and User:Krator. -- Magioladitis 23:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

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.