Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about homosexuality (2nd 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 no consensus. WjBscribe 15:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

List of songs about homosexuality

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This was nominated for deletion for the first time almost a year ago, and the nominator didn't present a strong argument, but taking a look at this list now I feel it is unsuitable for Wikipedia. It is:


 * completely unsourced
 * full of original research (the subheading "Songs where there is a strong indication the topic is homosexuality or can be interpreted as such" gives this one away)
 * listcruft - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 17:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'd like to add that many of the 'keeps' in the last nomination were based on poor arguments.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 17:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Note - first AfD is at Articles for deletion/List of songs about homosexuality.  Ar ky an  &#149; (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

(UTC)
 * Delete. After taking a few minutes to read the old AfD, I have to agree with the nom that the old keep !votes mostly revolved around calling the last one a bad faith/weak nom.  That notwithstanding, this article is indeed WP:OR, particularly with the sections that talk about "allusions" and the like.  Even if you excise that shady stuff out of the article and only leave a list of songs that are explicitly about homosexuality, it's still trivial information.  Ar ky an  &#149; (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment trivial to whom? Someone might say that the uses of maple trees is trivial information.  This information isn't trivial to those who study sociological issues. April 14 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.72.166.214 (talk) 23:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete Too much OR and trivial info. Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ 18:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Listcruft, WP is not an online database. Pavel Vozenilek 22:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: Lists aren't indiscriminatory collections of information. Listcruft really isn't a helpful word. What would be the issue with the list of all the original research was removed and only songs where included which clearly show homosexuality in either the lyrics or the title were included? It would show the obvious, yes, but if someone wants to find such songs a list is the way to go. Basically, I don't see what is so problematic it can't be fixed by severe cutting of the list. - Mgm|(talk) 08:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment even that would probably be subjective, and would involve the author of the rewritten page doing original research as to what references were contained in which songs.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 11:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The only way something like this could be kept would be if lists could be found in reliable sources or the list was changed to something less subjective like "List of songs with homosexual references in the title" Even then you would have to be very careful about establishing waht is considered a "reference." Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ 16:05, 13 April 2007
 * KEEP While it may be unsourced, many lists of these kinds are unsourced, however this is one of the only one that has been threatened to be erased. Also, it provides valuable information that is useful for those of us that study the presence of homosexuality in the mainstream. April 14
 * Comment. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (for similar unsourced lists) is not a valid argument that this list should not be deleted. In fact, most of those other lists should probably be deleted as well, unless they can be adequately sourced. This information is subjective, original research. And sign your posts.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 10:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Inclusion on this list would require interpretation - and interpretation is a hallmark of original research. Ezratrumpet 01:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, source wherever necessary. If the lyrics are explicit, must we find a citation? Do we need citations to prove genre in television in 99% of instances? ~ZytheTalk to me! 23:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep the first (and probably the third & fourht) part as relevant information on homosexuality's role in modern culture, but the second part ("Songs where there is a strong indication the topic is homosexuality or can be interpreted as such") is too POV an unsourced to be kept in the article. 96T 21:18, 17 April 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.