Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about Melbourne


 * 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 to keep them all, not having any real agreement to do otherwise; this is without prejudice to relisting individual ones, like those which may be content-free after ripping out irrelevant entires, as many have suggested. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 18:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

List of songs about Melbourne

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Trivial information, where most songs listed actually don't satisfy the restraint of being about the city. Fits with WP:NOT. This nomination was inspired by a comment at Articles for deletion/List of songs about weather, where most of the place-lists were left out. Included: Bulldog123 16:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * List of songs about Birmingham, Alabama
 * List of songs about Jerusalem
 * List of songs about Los Angeles
 * List of songs about Chicago
 * List of songs about California
 * List of songs about Detroit
 * List of songs about Manchester
 * List of songs about New Orleans
 * List of songs about New York City
 * List of songs about Pakistan - renomination
 * List of songs about Seattle
 * List of songs about Sydney
 * List of songs about Toronto
 * Delete as nom per proposal Overlistification --Bulldog123 17:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Though the quality of the lists may vary, they are not of necessity trivial and do consist of verifiable, factual information which, in my opinion, is suitable for an encyclopedia. Lists such as these provide a good place for the type of information that new editors tend to add to the main articles about cities (which, in those articles, would be trivia). Whereas a "list of songs about love" is clearly unmaintainable, a "list of songs about New Orleans", could be a great factual resource if improved. --Dystopos 17:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. At a minimum this nomination is too sweeping, as demonstrated in only the first two cities in question, Birmingham, Alabama and Jerusalem. At least some of these lists do seem to have encyclopedic value, unlike the examples given of "overlistification." I believe some of them have also survived previous challenges. -- Rob C (Alarob) 17:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a tough one. Songs about certain locations actually could serve to illustrate good points about them, but not ALL locations fit this bill. I have looked at all of these lists. The only one which makes a solid attempt to justify its existence in an encyclopaedia is Sydney. Therefore, I recommend: Delete all except the Sydney article as lists that do not really demonstrate anything about the cities or the songs about the respective cities. Merge the information about Sydney songs to an appropriate article (Popular culture of Sydney?) but do not merge the list except for one or two illustrative examples within the prose. ("My City of Sydney" is a major Sydney song, e.g.) GassyGuy 17:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep these. The buck stops here. I consider cities to be sufficiently relevant to escape WP:NOT, and I can imagine how such lists could be useful for a variety of reading interests.  I cannot say likewise for songs about the weather. Yechiel Man  18:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Cities might be relevant but songs that actually amount to really being about cities are no more than a handful. This makes the true lists under-extensive. Bulldog123 08:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for now but remove all entries whichi are not backed by a citation showing that independent sources consider them to be about the city in question. Songs about cities is encyclopaedic, but as noted many of these are just songs that mention the city (or allude to it) apparently added by fans of the band looking to spread the word. Guy (Help!) 19:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all This fails listcruff and is is original research -- su mn ji m  talk with me·changes 20:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: WP:LC ("Listcruft") is an essay and Overlistification is a proposal. Neither carry the weight of established policy or guidelines. And although there may be original research on some of these articles, that is a matter for normal editing, not for AfD (unless you believe that these articles can only be created by violating WP:OR). --Dystopos 20:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes I understand that WP:LC is not policy, however WP:OR is. Additionally, if there isnt' anything to establish notability on this list, then the WP:LC argument becomes valid, and should be deleted.  What purpose does this list make?  -- su mn ji m  talk with me·changes 20:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The content of an article, whether comprised of original research or not, is a matter to be corrected by editing, not deletion. It's not a bad idea to cite the arguments made in these other essays and proposals for the purposes of this discussion. My point is that "fails listcruft" is not an argument in itself because "listcruft" is not an accepted guideline. --Dystopos 21:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's funny. I bet I could go through the archives and find at least 100 articles deleted because they were listcruft -- su mn ji m  talk with me·changes 21:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And I could point out the language of the essay itself "The term is most often used in AFD debates concerning list articles. Its use is controversial." - To the extent that the essay explicates WP policy with regard to lists, that's great for discussion. But I think it's necessary to explain what you mean by 'fails listcruft' since listcruft is not an agreed-upon standard. --Dystopos 23:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Votes should be by policy, not essay - for example, it would be fine to say eg "Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:OR as an example of listcruft", and maybe explain why the list is in one's own opinion not able to be formed without WP:OR creeping in, but not Delete per listcruft, as the latter has no community consensus. Orderinchaos 02:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as listcruft. I can't take any more of these "list of songs about..." Useight 01:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable subjects suited for lists, all or almost all of them. List any that might not be.
 * Listcruft -- a term that can be applied to any list one dislike, or to all lists if one dislikes lists in general; we might just as rationally say articlecruft. The only reproducible meaning of listcruf is: "I !vote delete." DGG 02:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment The list of songs about Melbourne and Sydney published in the Melbourne Age and Sydney Morning Herald could form the source for those articles. However, that might be considered to be a copyvio. Capitalistroadster 02:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Capitalistroadster 02:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This has come up before . As I said the last time, I think the lists are interesting and useful, it is also useful to have such lists to redirect information that would otherwise clog up main article space. --Melburnian 04:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Question Can someone describe what a "song about a city" is without relying on original research? Is it a song that mentions a city in a lyric? A song devoted to a city? A song who's lyrics are entirely about a city? This area gets fuzzy. I think its fuzzy enough to justify simnjim's "Original research" comment - and even fully support it. Bulldog123 04:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per Melburnian. These have been nominated before (especially the Sydney one, where an attempt was made to back it up) and they were kept. Let's not engage in continual AfDs until things are deleted - that's not on. The lists are interesting and useful, and no different to a compilation of the "X in fiction/X in the media" sections that appear commonly in Wikipedia articles, and no one has any problem with them. The "original research" claim is really not the case - the subject matter of most songs is so obvious, that you only need a bit of common sense to know what it is about - and if it is obvious, it doesn't come under the banner of "original research" - read the policy. Only where the words and references to a city are obscure should original research even come into it. Finally, the nomination is far too sweeping and generalised. Let's keep all of these for the moment - there is no reason to delete them. JRG 05:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is a difference. "X in fiction/X in popular culture" make an attempt to succinctly describe the appearances of X in fiction or pop culture, which is much more the business of an encyclopaedia. These "articles" attempt to list every instance of something without giving any reason why it is encyclopaedic or significant to do so. GassyGuy 05:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If listing the appearances of X in pop culture is the business of an encyclopedia (and I wouldn't say that it is), then these articles are central to that business, are they not? --Dystopos 13:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, but those sections do not (or at least, should not) just list the appearances, but describe the significance of those appearances textually. A mere list of appearances in pop culture is just as unencyclopaedic as these lists. GassyGuy 04:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That would have no significance on the fate of this list. We can easily do some work fixing some of these up, but a mass deletion isn't going to help anyone. JRG 10:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I can easily tell you from experience, calls for "cleaning up" almost never work. Deleting and then forcing someone to recreate (when allowed) a more fine-tuned list has worked numerous times. Bulldog123 02:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I can easily tell you from experience, calls for "cleaning up" almost never work. Deleting and then forcing someone to recreate (when allowed) a more fine-tuned list has worked numerous times. Bulldog123 02:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Relist Too many lists to meaningfully argue the merits of keeping each one.Garrie 06:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all and relist individually any that dont appear to have more than 10 entries which cant be sourced as JzG outlines. John Vandenberg 13:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a no brainer to delete (please keep in mind that I already !voted earlier in the discussion). 1. This fails WP:LC horribly.  Here is a copy/paste from the WP:LC page as an example of Listcruft: List of songs containing the sound of a woodpecker .  By simple substitution, that can be List of songs about .  2.  Fails WP:OR, which I would like to remind you, is OFFICIAL POLICY in wikipedia.  Wording from WP:OR: It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;   Without a reliable source to each and every song name listed on each and every one of these lists, it does not pass WP:V, and is deemed original research.  Since wikipedia has an offical policy of not allowing original research, there is no other conclusion than to delete all of these lists. -- su mn ji m  talk with me·changes 14:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Once again, original research is an issue to be corrected by improving the article, not be deleting it. Furthermore, this type of list does not introduce an analysis or synthesize an argument, it merely collates factual material. There would only be a reason to delete based on WP:OR if it were impossible to create a list that can't be objectively verified. (And, as I've mentioned already, WP:LC is an essay, not a guideline. --Dystopos 14:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You are just going round and round in circles reiterating what you have already said. At least I elaborated why this should be deleted.  And you can't correct these lists by "editing" to remove the WP:OR.  The only thing you can do, is provide WP:RS to support them being on the list.  Otherwise it's original research, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.  You can't deny that.  Point in question.  In the Lists of songs about Birmingham, Alabama, is this song: Billy Joel, "We Didn't Start the Fire" who says it's about Birmingham, Alabama?  The author?  Holy $H|t...that's original research.  Provide a souce as to WHY it's about Birmingham, Alabama.  Along with that, provide a source to EVERY songs as to WHY they are about their respective city...otherwise it's original research, and should be deleted.  I'm getting a little tired having to re-explain this to you over and over. -- su mn ji m  talk with me·changes 15:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, so "We Didn't Start the Fire" is not a song about Birmingham, Alabama. Edit the list. Other songs are indisputably and verifiably about the city, such as "Tuxedo Junction". Your arguments (and I continue to explain this because you seem not to understand) are reasons to edit the lists, not reasons to delete the articles. --Dystopos 15:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to leave them the way they are, because in the state they are now, they are going to be deleted, and I want them deleted. If you want them kept you better get in gear and provide sources for WHY those songs are about the cities in question, or edit out incorrect songs. -- su mn ji m  talk with me·changes 17:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, one last time... article quality is NOT A REASON FOR DELETION. See Deletion_policy. The subject of our discussion is "can these articles be improved." not "have they been improved yet?" --Dystopos 18:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But original research is. Can you or anyone please define the encyclopedic value of a song about a place? Why should New York, New York be in the same list as The Boxer by Simon and Garfunkel. The lyrics of the latter are here: . Bulldog123 18:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * An answer to Bulldog's specific question may be found in the article The Boxer: "Simon sang the song to open Saturday Night Live on September 29, 2001, the first live SNL show following the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York City." A song doesn't have to contain the name of a city n times, or include it in the title, in order to be closely associated with that city. So I join Dystopos in advising that edits are more constructive than zaps in this case. (I already voted "keep.") Also want to thank sumnjim for detecting the error in the Birmingham list, although I could wish he had stated his finding a little more plainly. -- Rob C (Alarob) 19:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This will be my last edit, as I've said my peace. I'm assuming that the WP:OR is going to hold up, because it is obviously that.  FYI under songs about new orleans is the song: * "Truckin'" by the Grateful Dead.  In that song, it meantions Bourbon street, but the song is about the band being on the road, from their own mouths (read the article of the song), so that is another example of someone just putting anything that has even an iota of reference to the city, ie: original research.  Honestly, if you want these lists kept, source any songs that aren't obviously about the city (ie: the many songs called "Chicago" are obviously about Chicago), and remove any that really aren't.  I have no qualms of keeping if that's done.  The way that the lists are now, just don't cut the mustard. -- su mn ji m  talk with me·changes 19:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is that these lists are lists of primary sources, which are allowable with descriptive information (which is understandable by a person without specialist knowledge). To say a particular song is a "song about X" may or may not involve a level of understanding - my view is that if the song is obviously about something, it should be self-explanatory; however, if it involves some sort of analysis to understand that a song is about a particular issue, it needs a verifiable source so that we can understand that. Deletion is not the answer to these sort of lists if OR or verifiability is the problem - what is needed is a major cleanup - and the articles will probably need a lot of footnoting to be reliable and verified lists. JRG 23:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:OR is only a deletion criterion if an article can not be written without relying on original research. If the article needs improvement, then improve it, or tag it for improvement, or leave notes on the talk page. Deletion is another matter entirely. --Dystopos 19:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, basically this is listcruft. What's the criteria for including a song into this list, anyway?  Too vague.  Lankiveil 09:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC).
 * I would think the criteria is fairly straight-forward: the song has to be about a city of some description... if sourcing is the problem that's not an issue for AfD - that's an issue for improvement. JRG 10:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete all - I'm concerned about the WP:OR possibility of this, as well as WP:NOT#IINFO (some songs have nothing else in common). Re most of these cities, a few would indeed be about, or directly alluding to, the city. Whitlams' "Melbourne" (and various others with Melbourne clearly in the title) and Crowded House "Four Seasons In One Day" are probably the only verifiable ones (and I think one would need to verify each) for that city, while many others in the list which I know personally are not specifically about Melbourne and some just casually mention it or some part thereof. Orderinchaos 10:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment (on "List of songs about Melbourne"): The criteria for inclusion is given in the preamble to the list:
 * "This is a list of songs which mention or are about Melbourne the capital city of Victoria, Australia, the suburbs of Melbourne and nearby locations."
 * The great majority of the songs are listed in the references given from The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald and Triple J and by definition are not original research (by us). It would, however, be handy if a citation was given against each entry, as it is difficult at the moment to pick up OR entries without having a bit of time to spare. --Melburnian 14:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete all - in line with the many, many recent deletions of song lists. There is little or no regard in these lists as to whether the song is "about" a subject. Merely being mentioned in the lyrics of a song does not mean that the song is "about" the thing the lyric mentions. To respond specificlly to the notion that these lists should be kept because of the existence of articles and sections of "X in media" or "X in popular culture" and no one has a problem with them: in fact, many people have a big problem with such sections and articles. The sections are quite often tagged for cleanup and/or removal as trivia, editors frequently split them off into separate articles because they are clogging up the main article and when nominated for deletion such articles are quite frequently, almost uniformly, deleted. Otto4711 16:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly - it's not a "List of songs which happen to mention X". Orderinchaos 02:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and source. Part of a place's culture is in its reflection in the arts (including music); songs and other arts about a place are an encyclopedically relevant collection of related things: how the place is seen by commentators whose commentary is music rather than prose.  These need to be trimmed and sourced, however. Merely mentioning the town does not make it "about" that place, this ought not be a List of songs with XXXX in their lyrics - that would be unrelated.  Carlossuarez46 22:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent point Carlos; well said. I completely agree. JRG 12:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, the place effects the music, but there is no proof this music is representative of the genre of the place. So....what ends up being the reason for keeping the list isn't exemplified by the list at all. Bulldog123 20:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep all per Carlossuarez46, who explained it very well. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 23:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all per Yechielman and Carlossuarez above Johnbod 11:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for reasons said before--Freepablo 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - the list issue wins me. If we allow song titles or even song content to determine WP articles then we can just keep going without end. Any songs that are genuinely relevant to the locale in question should be included in an article about the place itself as a single sentence - where it will make sense to that article, or be deleted. Agnetha1234 08:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you explain how it is "to determine WP articles"? I assume some of these were probably pop-culture spinoffs from articles of this sort - they would have come from the article about the city, not the other way round. JRG 12:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure. What I mean is that when a title or the content of a song mentions a topic X, is that enough to justify a list article in WP about "List of songs about X"? If it is, then many/most words of all songs including mention of a given topic could then become the topic X in question for such a list article. It would have no end. I can see why people attached to a topic X would like to see such an article preserved, but I worry that if such lists endure they can just mushroom to encompass any topic that is ever mentioned in a song title or in the words to any song. If a song is really that importantly connected to a topic (eg Melbourne) - I would rather see it there. WP:LC seems meant for articles like this one but I appreciate others like list articles like this and they prefer to edit not delete, but my personal preference for such lists in WP, certainly about something as voluminous as words contained in songs, would be to delete. Agnetha1234 14:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be too keen for a blanket ban on all these lists. A city with a worldwide renown for its music scene such as New Orleans could well warrant a list of songs that are genuinely about the city (as opposed to mentioning it in passing), and one that would be too long to go as a subsection within the city article. Sydney, on the other hand, has no such level of international reknown, and I would be rather surprised if the average person on another continent had heard of any of the songs that are genuinely about the city (I only recognise one song on that list, and that one isn't about Sydney, it's more about a peninsula in Turkey). If these lists are kept, I would suggest they are expanded to include information on the song and why it is about the city if it is not obvious (e.g. "Strawberry Field" was a Salvation Army home in Liverpool where John Lennon used to go). Preferably with cites. Average Earthman 22:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I assume you're American? I don't agree with you on different cities having different criteria. Wikipedia is meant to be international, not American-based or anything else-based, and this means that not only New Orleans, but also cities like Sydney are welcome to have such lists in Wikipedia. By all means they need cleaning up, but to exclude cities like Sydney is to take away the internationalism of Wikipedia. We can't simply restrict the encyclopedia to something that only Americans have heard of. JRG 23:50, 24 June 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.