Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of birthday songs (2nd nomination)


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

List of birthday songs
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is being relisted for further discussion after a deletion review to take account of a major rewrite versus the end of the  previous discussion. Note to closing admin: I have not restored the revisions containing the removed lyrics, but if the list is being kept, it might be advisable to double check if that was actually necessary. Procedural nomination. Tikiwont (talk) 09:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep albeit the copyright status in the US of the song should be noted.   Collect (talk) 12:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep well referenced, I don't see the problem. Ikip (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Good standalone list for a notable topic. Is this simply a procedural nomination, or is there a rationale for deletion to advance here? Townlake (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A procedural nomination as suggested in the DRV (now also amended above), noting that even after the rewrite participants in the previous discussion argued for deletion. --Tikiwont (talk) 15:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. References are very poor. Stifle (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 *  Delete  as a directory. Its content would be better placed in the relevant articles for the songs. Benefix (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Having this information in one place serves to improve wiki. Readers can then follow internal links back to articles they never even knew existed.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Providing internal links to other articles is obviously a useful, directory type function and does not justify the existence of an article. However I have withdrawn my !vote because I can see where this is going. Benefix (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This is cool. Might consider WP:CLN but there aren't enough inclusions there to merit a category, either. That doesn't mean the information isn't useful. §FreeRangeFrog 20:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is an invalid argument per WP:USEFUL. Benefix (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't care. This is a non-controversial list of things that is not violating any guidelines at all. When someone Googles "birthday songs" and ends up on this page, maybe they'll say hey, I know the traditional birthday song for Micronesia and add it, or maybe click on a redlink and create the article for one of the songs already listed there. That's the whole frakin' point of this frakin' project, if I recall. §FreeRangeFrog 16:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm glad this was relisted, since it was substantially improved while the first deletion debate was going on. Mandsford (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per improved quality, content, and sourcing. Nice job.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep definitely a notable subject.Smallman12q (talk) 00:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as the editor who did the improvements and brought the DRV. Ironically, I think we may need to actually restore the deleted revisions for copyright reasons (i.e. to comply with the GFDL), as there was a lot of edit history and I did derive the list from the previously existing list that included the lyrics. Given the suspect status of the copyright in Happy Birthday to You, and that having these revisions lurking in the edit history in no way harms any commercial value of the song, which is based on public performance and recording rights rather than reproduction rights (what commercial value could there possibly be in publishing just the lyrics to a short and simple song that is already well-known to almost everyone on the planet who natively speaks the respective language?), I think it is a slam-dunk fair use case to restore these revisions in order to comply with the GFDL. DHowell (talk) 02:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - some cleanup is needed and more entries need to be included (such as "Happy Happy Birthday Baby" by the Tune Weavers), but it is clearly at a higher standard than the version I saw at the previous AfD. With the withdrawal of the "Delete" !vote above, are we getting close to a WP:SNOW keep? B.Wind (talk) 03:54, 8 February 2009 (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.