Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about killers


 * 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. Jaranda wat's sup 01:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

List of songs about killers

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

It is a "cool" list, but that's about it. Here is the list of song about graveyard:. WP:NOT. Note, this is the second to last list of song about not recently nominated. Bulldog123 01:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, definitely indiscriminate list of loosely associated topics. Lyrics in general aren't very concrete evidence, so a song could in theory be about X, when it's really about Y, Z, or even nothing! Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 01:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Because of the detail of the list, I would have voted "Strong Keep", but part of the reason so many killers are listed is that a band called "Macabre" seems to crank out songs like a musical version of Jay Robert Nash.  Moreover, if "Stagger Lee" has been covered by ten bands (including the "Greatful Dead"-- thank heaven that a Deadhead did a redirect), no need to list the title ten times.  Gotta disagree with the idea that the songs here may have a different meaning or that this is an "indiscriminate" list.  Unlike most subjects for song, evil people aren't referred to with any subtlety at all, and often the name ends up right in the title... thus, it's not hard to figure out what "The Ballad of Jeffrey Dahmer" is about.  So, clean it up, but this is a keeper. Mandsford 02:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.   -- Bduke 02:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete This is pure trivia and WP is not a trivia collection.  Indexing songs based on what's mentioned in their lyrics is trivia.  Corpx 02:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not if the songs are an outgrowth of a form (the murder ballad) that has long been studied by folklorists. -MrFizyx 17:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * These aren't murder ballads. Bulldog123 04:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep per Mandsford -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 02:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete trivia. Oysterguitarist 03:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per Mandsford. I see nothing in the cited section of NOT that is directly relevant to this list:
 * Lists of Frequently Asked Questions. NOPE.
 * Plot summaries. NOPE. This section talks about articles, not lists.  No list fulfills this criteria.
 * Lyrics databases. NOPE. This section talks about lyrics and source text.  These lists don't contain lyrics, they organize subject matter around themes.
 * Statistics. NOPE.
 * News reports. NOPE.
 * All of these AFDs about song lists are pushing NOT into new territory. I think the effort is very counter productive. -- &#x2611; Sam uelWantman 06:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Though, it really isn't meant to be taken this literally. Obviously every case can't be in one of those categories. The writers knew this. Like the Constitution really. Bulldog123 04:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that this list is actually quite useful - it is the kind of thing that I might potentially want to look up. Obviously, it could be better referenced, but nonetheless I don't think this is trivia, so I cannot see why to delete. Batmanand | Talk 12:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete delete delete, first of all, you can not use WP:ILIKEIT as a valid reason to keep an article,this is indiscriminate in the purest sense. -- su mn ji m  talk with me·changes 12:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not "ILIKEIT". One of the criteria for the inclusion of lists is that they are actually useful, and not arbitrary/trivial. IMO this list is not. An opinion is not the same as an unqualified emotional response. Batmanand | Talk 12:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I had to run out for breakfast quick because so I was unable to give a reason why I feel this should be deleted. I believe it to be an indiscriminate list, and because of that, meets the criteria for deletion.  Oh and by the way saying that a list is useful (per your own words) is WP:ILIKEIT -- su mn ji m  talk with me·changes 12:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In addition to that, how do we know thaat each and every song on this list is truely about the person? Where are the sources?  Sounds like original research to me, which is also a reason to delete -- su mn ji m  talk with me·changes 12:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * On that interpretation of ILIKEIT (which, incidentally, is an essay), any opinion on notability, usefulness, trivia or anything else is not a valid part of a deletion debate. The definition of "useful" is up for debate, but not whether there should be a debate at all. Your point about OR, however, is well made; thus I change my opinion to delete.Batmanand | Talk 13:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I like it. But that's not enough.  It would be a pity to lose the "value added" by the list.  Is there some way to rename it that would make it keepable?   Buck  ets  ofg  15:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps one could make the connection to murder ballad more clear. This, however, seems to be more specific than a List of murder ballads, because it is restricted to songs where the killer is known and it does not include fictional songs or songs where the details of the original story has been lost over time. -MrFizyx 17:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Big strong delete Hey, if everyone else is using "strong..." why shouldn't I? It's a trivia article. Lurker (talk · contribs) 15:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 15:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and above comments. This fails WP:NOT, WP:OR etc, and opens the way to create List of songs about ______ with whatever tenuous connection spring to mind. EyeSereneTALK 17:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I hate to cite "the essays", but isn't the last part of your argument pretty much WP:WAX? -MrFizyx 17:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose it does, yes ;) I just don't like the 'ABC vaguely related by XYZ' type of listcruft that WP seems to suffer from. The other two points re info for the sake of listing things and original research are still valid AfD criteria though. EyeSereneTALK 11:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Songs about killers are not a notable subgenre of song, making this list, indeed, indiscriminate. If someone is worried about losing the information, suggest housing it off Wikipedia. GassyGuy 00:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete suffers from the same "songs about" problems. Carlossuarez46 19:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, ah, yes "songs about killers" is a notable subgenre, although not well described here. These would appear to be the subset of murder ballads that are non-fictional.  I find the claim that the list is "indicriminate" to not be valid.  The current article has some obvious issues with WP:RS and perhaps WP:OR.  I think these could be overcome though.  Not everything in Bulldog's graveyard is dead.  Lets tag this one with unreferenced and give it some time. -MrFizyx 21:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The article has been around for a YEAR. -- su mn ji m  talk with me·changes 01:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it has been around for a year and no one has ever tagged it with cleanup or for original research or refimprove. No one has posted a comment on the talk page.  No one has proposed moving the article to a new title.  In a year, no one has ever noted the need to address any of the reasonable complaints about this article being made here.  AfD should not be the first stop for every article or list that has short commings.  This should only be more true if the article is long-standing and has drawn in a number of editors. -MrFizyx 14:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I know not everything is dead there but I think the point is that getting rid of all bad song lists now gives us the opportunity to make some really good song lists. Personally I think list of answer songs is really good. An answer song is a distinct type of song and the list is useful and notable (since many answer songs are part of a controversy). Bulldog123 03:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I know of no reasonable argument that you could make for (or against) keeping the List of answer songs article that does not parallel a reasonable argument that could be made for (or against) List of songs about killers. The same would be true with many of the other titles that have been part of your crusade.  I admit, I'm baffled by that one... Isn't a murder ballad a distinct type of song with historic origins?  Don't the songs collected here relate historical events and people?  Why should this list be any less useful or notable?  If you do realize that there are potentially good lists, why not try to improve the ones with potential rather than destroy such content? -MrFizyx 14:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per above. Wryspy 16:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ya know, there has been an awful lot of discussion above. Care to be more specific? -MrFizyx 17:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Per all the above delete arguments. "About" is vague, subjective, and impossible to apply objectively and consistently. Wryspy 06:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You're saying that no one can ever know what anything is "about"? -MrFizyx 14:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Per Samuel Wantman - you are redefining what WP:NOT means with all of these deletions and destroying years of work by hundreds, maybe thousands of editors to uphold a policy that doesn't say what you claim it says. Tvoz | talk 23:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know if this "you" is in reference to the nominator or just a universal you, but, taking a look at the history, it seems the only main contributor to the list was User:Bakilas, who doesn't seem to edit much anymore. So I wouldn't say hundreds... Bulldog123 17:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Useful, elucidating and enteraining. Never used it before, but I will in the future. Things like this are meant, I think, to be a "springboard" towards further reading. Where and how are readers supposed to make connections between the songs and the sometimes obscure subjects they describe if not for easy to use additions to the project such as this? Hamster Sandwich 23:49, 15 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.