Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about killers (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. The suggested merge to murder ballad is not a good idea as pointed out by DGG but I take it that those in favor of the merge do see some value in the content. Also I don't think those in favor of outright deletion have solidly established that the list is OR beyond repair. Pascal.Tesson 19:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

List of songs about killers
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Putting up for deletion as the same reason as all the other problematic song lists -- failing WP:NOT and WP:NOT, hard to verify, overly loose criteria for inclusion. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 14:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. Jauerback 14:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, per precedents of deleting trivias. Mukadderat 15:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for the same reasons I discussed in the first AfD. This is basically original research and unless there are some sort of reliable sources to back up the list, how can we just assume that each and every song is about the killer in question?  Yes I know some are "no brainers" but what about the ones that aren't no brainers?  Are we supposed to look up the lyrics to every single song and read through them?  I think the burden should be on the people who maintain the article, not everyone else.  Provide some sort of sources or something, otherwise it fails WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR. -- su mn ji m  talk with me·changes 16:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * it isn't quite that hard--most are explicit in the titles. To say that a song called "Legend of Bonnie and Clyde" is about Bonny and Clyde is not OR--it's the collection of perfectly obvious data right in front of you, and this sort of collection is part of the function of an encyclopedia. But, examining the actual article:
 * /sigh. I did say that there are "no brainers" in there, which would indicate that the song is obviously about the subject in the title.  However, I also said, that without going through each and every song on the list, we would not know if 100% of the songs are valid to be on the list in the first place. I'll put it as simple as it can be.  No sources = no verifiability = original research = delete. -- su mn ji m  talk with me·changes 17:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep since it is in fact sourced. There are 9 printed sources and 4 recorded compilations. All that is needed is the trivial work of going through and putting in the linking footnotes. A minor editing problem. This is one that makes me really wonder how carefully the nom examined the article. Not surprising, considering the number being nominated. DGG (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there some sort of way to verify that the sources listed list each and every one of the songs on the list, with some sort of proof to verify the songs relation to the subject of the song? -- su mn ji m  talk with me·changes 17:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete It is sourced, but per nom, WP:NOT and WP:NOT apply here. i said 00:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG. Needing a little bit of editing is not a reason for deletion. Mathmo Talk 00:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Also I feel the nomination was too soon after the previous one. Mathmo Talk 22:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, "'97 Bonnie and Clyde" is on the list. It isn't about Bonnie and Clyde though. I'm not familiar with many of the other songs I wonder how many of them are wrong as well? WP:NOT of songs that might or might not be about killers. If people say the list can be cleaned up, well "'97 Bonnie and Clyde" has been on there for nearly six months, and if one of the obvious errors hasn't been removed yet, I doubt much improvement will happen. Crazysuit 02:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I should stick to what I know--oops. But the comments about sourcing in my second paragraph still hold. And having an error and being neglected is a reason for attention, not deletion. DGG (talk) 05:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep I've voiced what I despise about bad "pop culture" articles. Now I'll voice what I despise about nominations I dealt with a few weeks ago.  If it seems faimiliar, this one closed on July 18.  No Wikicommandment about this one, but just as overuse gives pop culture articles a bad name, overuse gives the deletion process a bad name.  It's like going into the library every month and asking "Are you gonna put this on the book sale cart?"  Geez, give it a rest. Mandsford 02:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see a reason for your keep, other than you are unhappy that this is up for AfD after it was up for AfD a few weeks ago. Unless you actually give a valid reason, I don't see how your strong keep can be counted -- su mn ji m  talk with me·changes 12:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should read his vote as "keep per all keep votes of a few weeks ago." -MrFizyx 13:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not assume, or put words into anyone's mouth. Personally, I like people to give their own opinion, rather than have other people give it for them. -- su mn ji m  talk with me·changes 14:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks sumjim and Mr.Fizyx. Thanks for alerting me to my poor form,  Keep as listed above, and Strong Keep because of what I said when we went through this two weeks ago.  Speedy close if this gets a 3rd nomination before Labor Day. Mandsford 14:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, your "keep as listed above" can be covered under Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions. I read the previous AfD, and your vote in that AfD for keep "because the detail of the list" falls under Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions. There is no rationale for "speedy close if this geta a 3rd nomination before labor day" either. Can you give a real reason that you want this kept other than WP:ILIKEIT?  -- su mn ji m  talk with me·changes 19:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not assume, or put words into anyone's mouth. Personally, I like people to give their own opinion, rather than have other people give it for them.  Perhaps you should ask, "Is it fair to say that your arguments can be described by the essays, WP:PERNOMINATOR and WP:USEFUL?  I don't such arguments valid..."  And do keep in mind these are just essays and may not reflect a consensus among wikipedians.  -MrFizyx 20:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Cut and paste, cut and paste, let's see: "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 22:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete now has a further reading section not present during the last go-round, but still no real sourcing that tells us how much about a killer must a song be before inclusion on the list and sourcing that the song in question is at least that much about the killer. Carlossuarez46 21:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge relevant content to murder ballad. Since murder ballads are basically songs about killers and/or their victims.  And this list has some details and worthy examples not present there.  Both the list and the article are short enough that this could be done if editors feel that the stand-alone list is a violation of WP:NOT or whatever else.  Frankly I find the policy arguments on both sides of this debate to be fairly week.  I added the "further reading" section during the last debate in hopes that someone might put a little more meat in there.  It appears that kept the mob at bay for about two weeks.  Very discouraging. -MrFizyx 21:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * murder ballads are a much more specific genre. We have a perfectly god place for these, which is right here. DGG (talk) 07:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with you. I thought, however, that this might make a reasonable compromise.  Those who would nominate this every couple of weeks have more desire and time to work to eliminate articles than I have desire and time to fix them. -MrFizyx 15:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as original synthesis of whatever songs might have occurred to the editors without the benefit of secondary sources establishing weight or notability. Cool Hand Luke 08:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yours is a valid concern. Did you pay any mind to the "further reading" section?  The potential is there to provide sources. -MrFizyx 15:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh jeez, you're right. The prose needs serious cleanup, but the sources support a merge to murder ballad, as you suggested. Cool Hand Luke 17:12, 6 August 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.