Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of repetitive 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 while there are serious OR issues, parts of the article are well -sourced. The suggestion to rename it to be an article about repetitive songs or infinitely recursive songs does have enough merit that I'm not going to delete this for now. However, I strongly urge the people who have argued for keeping below to put in effort so that we don't have this same AfD again in a few weeks. JoshuaZ 15:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

List of repetitive songs

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Total original research, seeing was what counts as a "repetitive song" depends entirely on the person entering the song on the list. For everyone interested in "helpfulness" (or rather, notability) of such an article. There is none to be found. Bulldog123 15:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The inclusion criteria are by their own admission arbitrary.  I hate to sound repetetive in all these lists of songs articles, but they all fail for the same overall reasons.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Examining the list, they are "infinitely recursive songs", that can be repeated indefinitely, not the much vaguer set of songs all or part of which repeats a few time. The article explains clearly what the criteria are, and the songs meet it. Possibly change to a better name, after the pattern of Repetitive song, which will eliminate the word "List"DGG 16:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "The article explains clearly what the criteria are, and the songs meet it." Um...who cares? If a list is justified just by having a good inclusion criteria then we might as well rename wikipedia "myspace". This is what came up when I tried to look up "repetitive song" as a distinct entity: or an "infinitely recursive song" . Not convincing. Bulldog123 16:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I answered that part of the argument because its the most objective of the possible reasons to delete a list. The other reason given was that it was not helpful, but that seems a very individual criterion: in my eyes this is a distinct genre and therefore helpful. I don't expect everyone to be interested in all articles. And I judge the article by what is in the article, not by what is in google. DGG 19:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep, it's not an indiscriminate list and all the songs on the list have their own pages. Useight 21:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - it isn't completely arbitrary, and describes a fairly well-defined set of songs. However, it probably should be renamed/rewritten along the lines of Cumulative song. Terraxos 22:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete it may not be completely arbitrary, but it is arbitrary: inclusion of 99 bottles of beer - which repeats with a slight difference in each round and in a not-so-slight way on the 99th verse - is indicative of the less than rigorous criteria. Carlossuarez46 23:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * though not mentioned in the article on the song, the version I know continues with "if one of those bottles should happen to be put back, ... and so on ad infinitum in a repeated cycle of 198 verses. the article does include a variation to a similar effect. DGG 01:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * the barfing version we used to sing. not high brow but memorable. ;-) Carlossuarez46 18:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. The criteria seem fairly well-defined.  Nearly all songs are repetitive to some degree, but these ones have verses which repeat "exactly or almost exactly for an arbitrarily large number of iterations".  That describes a pretty small subset of songs. —Psychonaut 00:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The criteria are not so clear as they seem. As I raised on the previous AfD, many songs can be repeated infinitely with little variation so long as it begins and ends in a similar way, because you can then take the end and just keep going as if it were the beginning, regardless of the intention. There is no actual phenomenon to really document these songs, either, leading me to believe they are not only arbitrarily defined and selected, but non-notable as a category of song. GassyGuy 00:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 *  Delete Fails WP:OR. The criteria used is irrelevant. This article is original research. I would be a little more comfortable about it if the word 'list' were removed per DGG above. Trusilver 17:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia should not be the place to categorize songs Corpx 17:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Then why do we have Category:Songs? Casperonline 18:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-defining feature. All songs are repetitive. Therefore pointless. Casperonline 18:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not all songs are repetitive in the way defined in the list. In fact, very few are. --Romanski 18:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete &mdash; it's great that the author was able to come up with a specific definition but that doesn't mean we should keep the article. Cedars 10:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 03:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Listcruft. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 22:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:UGH --Romanski 18:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I like those essays. But hey, that's cruft!  Unencylopedic, if you will.  What's a repetitive song anyway?  The definition they give is kinda hazy.   ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 22:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete What? Why? This makes no sense as to why it was created, and does not serve an encyclopedic purpose.SpecialAgentUncleTito 01:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but clarify; it should give a very precise definition of "repetitive songs".  Sala Skan  11:27, 13 July 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.