Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mutually exclusive song lists

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk July 8, 2005 11:39 (UTC)

List of mutually exclusive song lists
Not encyclopedic, not useful. Somewhat self referential, as it is about the qualities of certain Wikipedia lists in particular. After seeing this page and List of songs that reference bosoms, I am beginning to wonder if the permissive standards for inclusion of articles at Category:Lists of songs is making it a breeding ground for pranks. --Tabor 29 June 2005 16:57 (UTC)


 * Delete drini &#9742; 29 June 2005 16:58 (UTC)
 * Delete. Might as well have "list of self-referential lists". -- BD2412 talk June 29, 2005 17:47 (UTC)
 * These are not "pranks". We've been in this situation before.  All editors are encouraged to please read Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/SamuraiClinton and to help avoid events taking the course that they took last time. Uncle G June 29, 2005 19:25 (UTC)
 * Delete, no potential to become encyclopedic, WP self-reference. An editor's autism or Asperger's syndrome is irrelevant to VfD voting, although I agree that the earlier exchange is a good reminder for voters to discuss the topic and not the editor or nominator.  Whether someone is using WP to illustrate a point or goofing around or expressing some unusual patterns of connection-making, the resulting article needs to give factual verifiable non-trivial information about the real world, or it will get deleted.  Barno 29 June 2005 20:46 (UTC)
 * It is relevant, because the same "these are all by the same editor, I see" murmurings and comments about vandalism and "pranks" are beginning in several VFD discussions, in the pattern that occurred last time. Last time, this escalated and eventually culminated in the RFC that you see above.  I strongly encourage editors to read the RFC and to not repeat the events of last time. Uncle G June 30, 2005 12:43 (UTC)
 * No offense intended to the creator of this article, Uncle G, which I do not doubt was a good-faith effort to contribute. But we must not open this door to those who would use such an article as a pretext to achieve less savory ambitions. -- BD2412 talk June 30, 2005 23:22 (UTC)
 * Delete. What about List of lists not listed anywhere ?     29 June 2005 20:58 (UTC)
 * Delete unencyc list.-Splash June 29, 2005 22:24 (UTC)
 * No vote. This list was made for people to enjoy reading, it was not a troll intention. --SuperDude 29 June 2005 22:47 (UTC)
 * I hope that other editors understand that, SuperDude115, and I hope that you understand that other editors view this list as being unsuitable for an encyclopaedia for the reasons that they are giving here. Uncle G June 30, 2005 12:43 (UTC)
 * Sadly, I must vote delete as well. This certainly is not an attempt at trolling.  It is an interesting attempt at out-of-the-box thinking.  I just don't know how useful this would be as a reference.  I'm not even sure what it means. - Lucky 6.9 30 June 2005 02:20 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nonencyclo. I don't know how Uncle G can claim with such certainty that this is not a prank---unless he can somehow intuit the intentions of the author in a way that others are not able. Making an absurd and trivial list article is prankish behavior in my book. carmeld1 30 June 2005 03:02 (UTC)
 * Based on my interactions with SamuraiClinton/SuperDude (I brought the RFC against him), I can assure you that this is not a prank, but, as Lucky says, an example of "out-of-the-box thinking." SuperDude is an eager and enthusiastic contributor, but just has a radically different idea of what makes an article encyclopedic. Could he be just another troll pretending to be autistic? Sure, but I find that highly unlikely, and there's always the need to assume good faith. I will also have to vote to Delete this one. Barno said what I was going to say better than I was going to say it. A &#1080; D &#1103; 01D  TALK  EMAIL  June 30, 2005 03:15 (UTC)
 * I won't reiterate what Android79 said, but will reiterate my strong encouragement not to go down the path that we went down before, as levying accusations of "prankish behaviour" does. Let's try to do this differently the second time around. Uncle G June 30, 2005 12:43 (UTC)
 * Delete unmaintainable list. JamesBurns 30 June 2005 03:27 (UTC)
 * Delete useless and unmaintainable list (as are the entries on it). --Angr/undefined 30 June 2005 06:34 (UTC)
 * Delete - irrelevant listing drawing irrelevant connections - Skysmith 30 June 2005 08:32 (UTC)
 * Delete. Although it's impossible for the same song to end up in both lists, they have no other relation to each other. I doubt that alone makes them "mutually exclusive". Difficult to maintain and unencyclopedic.   &mdash; J I P | Talk 30 June 2005 10:03 (UTC)
 * Delete. Interesting list and thinking, but not something for an encylopedia. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish June 30, 2005 16:49 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.