Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of country songs


 * 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

List of country songs

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Prod removed without explanation. This list can never be complete, and the statement for inclusion notable country songs is purely WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. It is WP:LISTCRUFT and redundant to Category:Country songs. - Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 18:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The intentions were good, but this is someone's 57 favorite songs out of thousands. I'm afraid that this list could go on forever and ever, forever and ever, forever and ever.  Amen.  Mandsford (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Ol Yeller  Talktome 18:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per all above. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 19:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete also per all above. Tezkag72 (talk) 21:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Even if we attempted to make this list complete it would begin to resemble a directory rather than have any encyclopaedic value. Also you are bound to have awkward corner cases - is song xxx a country song or something else? CrispMuncher (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  —Cunard (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as er Toddst1 (talk) 22:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Question: What possible encyclopedic value can such a list bring? It's not as if we don't have a search capability. Toddst1 (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The list does not need to contain encyclopedic content, it is valuable as a navigational and organizational tool. Browsing a list and searching for a specific item are almost diametrically opposed, so the fact that you can search Wikipedia is not germane to the issue. &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  21:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Normally for these things someone always comes along and says "if it gets too big it can be split per 'WP:Lists can be split when they get too big"' or something like that. In this case I think it would be best to split it by decade (and actually sort it by year instead of alphabetically). I've made a start on adding dates. Nerfari (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and edit to include only those with a Wikipedia article--the usual standard for what gets included on a list like this. Most lists will never be complete. Neither will Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I was going to say the exact same thing as DGG. (1) The requirement for inclusion in the list is Wikipedia's general notablility guideline-- in other words, if an article already exists or an article needs to be created for a song, then it gets included.  (2) The list may never be complete, but that is not a problem in the least.  (3) This list can be useful for redlinks to needed articles. &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  00:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd point out that even if you limited this to blue links, there are 377 subcategories for the category of country songs, broken down by artist, and that even if you make a conservative estimate of only five songs per each artist with a category, it would be an unmanageable list. As far as current artists go, guys like Kenny Chesney have 34 blue-link songs so far, and there will be more.  Once a list reaches thousands of entries, it's no longer useful, because it has to be broken down into "List of country songs that start with A", "List of country songs that start with B", etc.  Maintaining such lists would not necessarily be impossible, but it would be pointless.  Mandsford (talk) 01:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The more of them there are, the greater the need for organizational devices. Even clumsy ones are a start. DGG (talk) 04:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would add that I don't see the problem with splitting a list into multiple lists if it gets too long. &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  21:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Articles in Category:Years in country music already include lists of the top country songs of the year with links to existing articles. Eric444 (talk) 06:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. There is no need for lists when the category system fulfills the same purpose. – sgeureka t•c 14:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Categories and lists serve different purposes. With a list you can link to non-existent, but needed articles, and you can include additional information, in this case the artist for each song. &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  21:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong delete per Eric444. Category:Country songs and Category:Years in country music already serve as sufficient navigational hubs. There have been hundreds of Top 40 hits in the past 5 years alone, do you really expect this list to ever be complete? Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG et al. Like the joke about the second man on death row, I'll go first if I have to listen to Achy Breaky Heart one more time.  I'm not sure what's the problem with a list and a category; WP:LIST allows for both.  WP needs more, not fewer, pop culture navigation tools. Bearian (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment to all the folks saying this list is redundant to the category. (1) Lists make it possible to have redlinks to needed, but not yet written, articles. (2) Lists make it possible to have additional information, for example linking to each song's Artist. To those of you saying the list will never be complete-- Can you give a reason why that is a problem? &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  21:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm coming round to the POV that this alphabetical list is, while not pointless, not worth the effort required to maintain it. For me, the best thing about the current list that I can find songs I've heard of but wouldn't remember the name of, but if the list contains too many barely-notable songs it would be too bothersome to go through it. Perhaps the inclusion criteria could be tighter than WP:SONG and the others could be left to the category system. Nerfari (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Top 20 hits by year are already listed on the years in country music pages, which I think serve as a decent enough hub. Does any other genre have a list of songs by genre? Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * hey, TPH, that's a good idea--to do them for the others. There seem to be enough people interested in popular music around here--well, do them at least for those genes where there are enough people to do the work.  DGG (talk) 04:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd rather have people work on the country music articles first (hint, hint). Almost all of them are in lousy condition. :-P  Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * TPH, it's not up to you to decide what other people should be working on. If you think the country music articles need improving, then do it. Let other people work on improving this list if they so prefer. DHowell (talk) 03:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and appropriately trim and split. Somewhere between a hopelessly unnavigable category with hundreds of sub-categories to wade through, and an unmaintainable list of potentially thousands, if not tens of thousands of songs purely in alphabetical order, there lies a happy medium. A series of 10-30 lists, perhaps categorized by decade, or maybe even half-decade for some periods, of notable country songs, would be far more useful and maintainable than either a plain alphabetical list, or a category of subcategories of subcategories of subcategories. It'll be a lot of work, but it's not impossible, and this list can be a start towards that end. Perfection is not required. Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. DHowell (talk) 03:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm a firm believer in the saying "It takes a village to raise a child." This list will most likely never be completed and there will always be a question about the notability of the songs on the list but since Wikipedia is a community-based project, everyone has the option of refining it to make it better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magic 8 ball 1982 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Let's not let the perfect be an enemy of the good WP:IMPERFECT -- 7triton7 (talk) 04:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Much too general a topic. Aubergine (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep – When it is impractical to objectively and non-arbitrarily define and identify a complete set (i.e. a specific set of items that is generally recognized as constituting a single, defined grouping, such as Sultans of Zanzibar, Miss Universe titleholders and Spooks episodes; in the case of this article, the "complete set" would be "all country songs"), I think that categories are superior to lists for purposes of navigation. However, the fact is that many editors and readers prefer lists to categories for purposes of navigation and browsing, and current consensus is that categories and lists complement one another. While this alphabetical list is currently not very much better than a category, it has the potential to be improved (in appearance, content, and organization) and to serve as a useful tool for navigation. I agree with the various suggestions offered by others to split the list by genre, time period, or something else. –Black Falcon (Talk) 20:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. What I'd really like is something short enough that I could browse through the whole thing. I think the Years in Country Music articles are great, and I wish I knew about them before I started editing this, but it's inconvenient to hop from one to another. Maybe a more restrictive alphabetical list would complement the category and the Years articles. But I think it's important to know where we are going before we invest too much time in this thing. Nerfari (talk) 22:06, 14 March 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.