Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of English songs whose title includes nonsense words


 * 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 as listcruft. (aeropagitica) 22:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

List of English songs whose title includes nonsense words

 * DELETE - ongoing struggle to end "lists of songs about..." - arbitrary my friends 4.18GB 21:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - pointless exercise. And anyway, it should be songs in English, not English songs.  Emeraude 22:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unless it's a sub these are for specialist sites. Nate1481 22:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Tear Down These Dynamiclists! because they can go on forever, arbitrary. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 23:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as hubjub and gooliciosity. --Dhartung | Talk 23:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Deletdaba Danny Lilithborne 23:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, somewhat arbitrary, and it's badly defined too (appears to also include song titles with neologisms/portmanteaus/etc, and songs with questionable nonsensitocity, like Amarok). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This particular list was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Lists of songs. One particular concern raised was original research, and that construction of such lists should be in the form of verifiability from sources that have already collated such a list, rather than having readers having to resort to inspection to check the content.  As such, this list is verifiable and constructable from this Tribune article, this list, and this list, for starters. As to whether the scope of the list is too narrow or too broad (Lists (stand-alone lists)): This list is not a set complement, its criteria being inclusive ("everything with property X") rather than exclusive; and it is not, contrary to what it is stated above by TrackerTV, infinite, since the total number of songs in the world is finite.  Wwwwolf's problems with the article lie in whether neologisms constitute nonsense, and are addressed by sidestepping the problem entirely and relying upon sources that have already done the work, such as those previously mentioned, rather than original research by Wikipedia editors that then has to be argued about.  Quite a lot of the article can be retained even if all of the entries that cannot currently be sourced are removed, and the sources contain much that isn't already in the article.   Maintaining the list is a matter of finding, citing, and using additional sources. Keep. Uncle G 15:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I find the logic "Song lists can't be infinite because the number of songs in the world are finite" fairly ridiculous. There's a finite number of grains of sand in the world, too.  That doesn't mean trying to count them is any less a waste of time. Danny Lilithborne 20:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If you find it ridiculous, then your knowledge of logic is insufficient. I suggest reading our article on finite sets which tells you that any subset of a finite set is itself finite.  Your comparison of songs to grains of sand is a highly misleading one, moreover.  Uncle G 00:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The 'ongoing struggle' is not an argument - your opponents do struggle too
 * Writing 'DELETE' is like shouting to me
 * 'pointless exercise' see below
 * 'songs in English not English songs' - thats a title change youre talking about, then.
 * 'for specialist sites' - counts for about half of this wikipedia, and right so I'd say
 * 'those dynamic lists ... they can go on for ever' ? - as written by Uncle G above.
 * 'hubjub and gooliciosity', 'deletdaba' - the list does not coin neologies, of course. How do you expect me to weigh this as an argument?
 * 'badly defined' - then improve the definition I'd say.
 * 'questionable nonsensible' - Sure. Do we drop articles with a questionable edge? Then don't look for things about Iraq or Israel here?
 * And in general: this list is a fine way to cite existing, truly used nonsense-words. As so it is a way of documenting the use (first time?) of these words - which is a correct scientific way of language-following description. And in a limited context (i.e. songs) - the better. Keep -DePiep 21:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * comment - verbose vote duly noted..4.18GB 01:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This I do not understand. After the verbose (?) I did write keep. Maybe any subtlety, pun or nonsense-sense included in the comment? We do need an article on that, then. -DePiep 19:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So far no one has reacted to the list of argument-reaction. ~Says it to me. -DePiep 19:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Can't see the usefulness with this one, trivia at best. Jay32183 23:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. utcursch | talk 13:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." is not an indiscriminate criterion for deletion. It is not a synonym for "I think that this article should be deleted.".   This list does not fall into any of the categories listed at What Wikipedia is not. Uncle G 16:57, 1 November 2006 (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.