Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of self-referential songs (5th 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 delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, especially useless information. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 22:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

List of self-referential songs
AfDs for this article: 

Throughout it all, this list remains to be nothing more than subtrivial list-cruft, failing the very basics of our WP:FIVE pillars. The previous two nominations have resulted in "no consensus", but it is my hope that the community has matured enough to reach a decision on what to do here, as nothing within the list constitutes encyclopedic material. Thank you for your time. Burntsauce 21:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete incomplete list that will never be complete. Nothing more than listcruft.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 22:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is an unreferenced indiscriminate collection of information. No evidence presented that anyone cares. Moreschi Talk 22:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. To my mind, the important questions are: 1) is there anything in the literature about self-referential songs in general, and 2) what specific songs have been identified as self-referential in secondary sources? Without these, this is non-notable original research. Jakew 22:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. To answer question 1: Here're some possible links from the last discussion:       .  Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 23:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Thank you. I'm prepared to consider the concept of self reference in music and verse. Supposing that we were to keep this article in some form or other (and I'm not necessarily saying that we should), is a list of examples sourceable? Jakew 23:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The publication/copywriting of the song is the primary source. There are a number of lyric sites that can serve as secondary sources. For example,  Oops. Such sites clearly violate copyright protections. Rubioblanca 15:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Assuming a site with copyright permissions was found, I'd still view it as a primary source. Assuming that the lyrics were accurate, the information is exactly the same as the source itself. Printed lyrics are no more a secondary source than a reproduction of a book. Jakew 16:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as listcruft. However per Jakew I would also support a more generic article on self reference. Dbromage  [Talk]  01:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete making a list of songs, by what they mention in passing, is a list of loosely related info + pure trivia Corpx 04:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Most lists will ever be complete if time is open ended, there will always be one more president and pope. The reference is the actual song lyric. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I really don't understand what that means. MessedRocker (talk) 06:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Open ended collections/groups belong as a category. Lists are for finite sets of data.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 19:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I am not aware that lists are by definition finite. Is this a wikipedia rule/pillar I missed? I am new to this.Rubioblanca 23:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment its not a hard rule no, its common practice and in many essays. Re-read this "Is the list's criteria so open-ended as to welcome infinite results?" In this case, yes it is, because songs will always be written.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 00:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment "The usefulness of lists in Wikipedia is very clear as it often provides the starting point for readers to research a particular subject" is the start of the second paragraph in this I believe that to be a valid purpose of this list. Typefaces are also always being invented (the 'good' example from the article also in paragraph 2) making that an open-ended list as well.  Is the potential size of the list the biggest problem here?  Would it make sense to propose a restriction that the song be from a notable artist? Rubioblanca 01:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * comment the fact that artists in said list should be notable should be a no brainer. Personally I think there shouldnt be any entries in the list that are redlinks. If you dont have an article yet, your likely not notable enough to be an entry in the list.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 02:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, potentially infinite listcruft, and an indiscriminate collection of information, which Wikipedia is not. --Core desat 06:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Probably fascinating material for a website somewhere, but not very encyclopedaic - somewhat subjective, potentially huge, and many of these songs aren't themselves very notable. Out! Brianyoumans 21:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge, Premise: Self reference is a concept of interest in the philosphy of language.  Argument:  A list of self referential songs has merit in that context as a resource.  If that is an agreeable assertion, then the list rises above the level of trivia and the information in the article should be retained. Rubioblanca 18:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC) — Rubioblanca (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep, people.... stuff like this is what Wikipedia excels in. Its what makes us different from other, regular, encyclopedias. This list has a very well-defined scope (hence it is NOT indiscriminate), making it absolutely not unmaintanable or infinite. The article could do with proper sourcing, but that is a request for improvement, not deletion. Also, categories are markedly different from lists. Lists are simply a different way of providing information and navigation through articles, they are complementary rather than redundant to categories. Also, nominating ONE month after the previous discussion with the main argument being "I hope that the community has matured enough" shows disrespect for the earlier discussions. I am not gonna argue about specific policies or WP:ANOTHERACRONYM. Lists like this make us what we are. We should be proud of this and improve, rather than delete anything that seems slightly out of the ordinary. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia may excel in non-encyclopedic trivia, but that sure as hell doesn't mean we should be encouraging it.  This is precisely the type of infinite listcruft we should be avoiding if we ever hope to be taken seriously as an encyclopedia. RFerreira 22:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Extraordinary that people keep wanting to delete material like this. This is one of the types of things that makes Wikipedia great. Sheesh. older ≠ wiser 02:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT. Saying WP:ILIKEIT is not really a valid argument.  -- B figura  (talk) 21:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC) See below
 * Weak Keep per Rubioblanca's notability comment and reference. Only one question: is there a copy vio issue here with the song lyrics, or does it constitute fair use? -- B figura (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Good point. Excerpting songs for nonprofit educational purposes appears (not a copyright lawyer) to be fair use.  However, none of the excerpts are fully attributed (which would include authorship of the lyrics as well as name of the copyright holder and date of copyright). That lack should be repaired. Rubioblanca 17:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. How exactly does WP:NOT apply? If your point is that this falls under 2.9 as an "indiscriminate collection of information" then I respectfully disagree. The article Self-reference discusses the general topic.  A list such as this is a useful adjunct to that topic.  The criteria for inclusion in the list is clear and thus not indiscriminate.  A google search for:  phd thesis "self reference" yielded 160,000 results.  My point earlier is that self reference is a major topic in philosophy (from Descartes to Derrida) and that this list is potentially useful in that context.  As a new member of the community (this is my first topic), I don't understand the fervor for deletion.  Is there an incentive to remove data from the Wikipedia? Rubioblanca 00:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment in a word: yes. I agree that self-reference is a notable topic, which is probably why Wikipedia has an article about. But Wikipedia is not a collection of every possibly useful bit of information, it's an encyclopedia.  Just because something is potentially useful to someone somewhere does not make it notable.  (Ie, can we find impartial and reliable sources that discuss it?) -- B figura  (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't how to make an external reference yet [Sorry]. If you Google: phd thesis "self reference" song; and look at the first result: Does that meet your criteria?  There are a boatload of articles mentioned there, at least a few of which specifically discuss song and metalanguage.  Rubioblanca 02:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Yes, I think it does. I wonder whether it would be worth including a brief introduction to the list (and include that as a ref), or if that would run afoul of formatting issues. In any event, I'm happy enough about notability now. -- B figura (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Similarly WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason for deletion either. The list is hardly indiscriminate--the criteria for inclusion is pretty clear. And while the list will never be "complete", that in no way means it would be better as a category. older ≠ wiser 02:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Totally indiscriminate list. DWaterson 23:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although this list approaches the listcruft definition line, it does not cross it. The Wikipedia definition of listcruft includes “Lists of songs containing the sound of a woodpecker.” If there was such a woodpecker list, then the list of other lists would be pretty infinite: songs with thrushes singing, with robins tweeting, cows mooing, frogs croaking, and so on. These lists would be listcruft and probably would only be of serious use to a collector of amusing lists. However, I believe a list of self referential songs is different in that it serves a proper encyclopedic purpose. I can imagine someone undertaking serious research being appreciative of finding such a list. Wikipedia has approaching 2,000,000 English language articles, when it is at 20,000,000 or 100,000,000, some will be on major issues that will be referred to constantly and some will be on pretty obscure subjects. This article may be at the obscure end of the spectrum, but is a learnéd and valid contribution. Rickedmo 02:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Where else will I get this information? Reubot 07:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Wikipedia is the prmiary source for this, but Wikipedia is not supposed to be a primary source.  You mis-spelled delete, by the way, since your argument indicates that the article fails policy. Guy (Help!) 22:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete You can get it from a category. --MagneticFlux 17:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm usually an inclusionist and would usually support something like this but this is cruft on crack. It would be one thing if we were going by titles but to micromanage the lyrics to find one bit of self reference is just going too far.  MrMurph101 18:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete I don't see how this list could be useful. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Can a passer-by's opinion help? I chanced upon this article, am interested in metafiction and self-referentiality in general, and found it handy. --Kizor 08:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Keep per Reinoutr. IrkCome in for a drink! 22:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. per WP:NOT. Talk about an indiscriminate list. JasonCNJ 19:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete It is the very model of self-referential cruftery. This is a canonical example of a loosely associated collection of information, and in most cases the definition of self-reference lies with an editor who may or may not understand what self-reference means, and it may or may not be a significant part of the song. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 3 September 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.