Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about masturbation (3rd 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. W.marsh 16:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

List of songs about masturbation
Have seen lists of songs going up. Ran across this one and looks like it is suspect to be deleted, even though failed a previouns nom (april 05 i believe).Chris Kreider 17:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - Just a random list, and probably hard to prove. Chris Kreider 17:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - The claim that these songs are all concerned with masturbation is not common knowledge, and is not sourced within the article. So, delete. --Nehwyn 18:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but reference - This list is as encyclopedic as all the other lists in Category:Lists of songs about a topic. I suggest sourcing the listed songs, perhaps by mentioning relevant lines from the songs etc. A  ecis  Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 18:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No offense, but I'd say "Keep but reference" is wishful thinking, unless you plan on doing it yourself. This article has been there for a long time. --Nehwyn 18:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've done it for the list of sportspeople who tested positive for banned substances, and I'm willing to do it for this list. Having said that, any help in improving the list is ofcourse welcome. I suggest a five four-column list for this one: song, artist, genre, relevant line(s) and a link to the full lyrics. Any thoughts? A  ecis  Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 19:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't care about the "genre" column, but apart from that, your suggestion would indeed make this article acceptable. --Nehwyn 19:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right. I've removed "genre" from the columns. I've gone through the list, and it needs pruning as well. Silverchair's Abuse Me, for instance, is not about masturbation. A  ecis  Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 23:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wasn't referenced before, still not referenced. Most of this seems to be speculation/original research.  Wickethewok 18:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Aecis Jcuk 23:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I really no longer care, but I offer the following:
 * This is actually its 3rd afd/vfd (not the second), as documented on the talk page
 * It is documented/sourced...every entry has an html comment with the appropriate lyrics.
 * Wikibofh(talk) 23:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "every entry has an html comment with the appropriate lyrics" &mdash; The fact that people think that the article cites no sources is a direct result of your chosen bad citation method. Citations should be legible.  You are witnessing the consequences of their being illegible. Uncle G 01:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. If you want it cited, it can be, but this is the best way I've found to have any attemot to keep the cruft out.  Don't mistake using the cite template as the only method of dpong citations. Wikibofh(talk) 02:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the link next to the song goes to the article about the author of the song, not the lyrics. --Nehwyn 07:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't write anything about the other methods of citation. I wrote that citations have to be legible.  A citation method that uses illegible citations results in the consequences that you are seeing right now.  It's a bad citation method.  Uncle G 11:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Aecis has sound reasoning, and that is as valid as any reason to keep this article. SunStar Net 23:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete With due respect to Aecis, whom I admire for his dedication to inclusionism, the odds the this list can be appropriated verified from independent reliable sources indicating that the songs are about masturbation are low. Then, the article will have to be watched like a hawk to prevent unreferenced material from being added.  Thus, the list is simply going to be too much work to be worth what little utility it provides.-- danntm T C 02:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep useful list and verifiable, not likely to become overwhelmingly large. The fact that an article may be the target of users who don't cite references or of vandals does not mean it should be deleted, otherwise the most viewed articles here should all be deleted. Carlossuarez46 03:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * True, but currently it's not about users who don't cite reference... it's the whole article that cites no references. --Nehwyn 07:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I draw your attention to the discussion on this very page of the illegible citation method being employed by the article. I've made some of the citations legible for your reading pleasure. Uncle G 11:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see now. Well, an invisible comment is not displayed on the page, so they should be converted to a legible format (thanks Uncel G). Unfortunately, those that have been made legible, are either original research, unproven ("said once in a radio interview..."), or not references at all. --Nehwyn 18:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That an article fails to cite references is a call to improve it not delete it. Carlossuarez46 18:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Useful list as surely someone will find it "helpful". -- User:Docu


 * 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.