Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs whose title constitutes the entire lyrics


 * 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. Daniel Case 03:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

List of songs whose title constitutes the entire lyrics

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Textbook case of WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOT. Bulldog123 17:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Weak keep. It may be WP:TRIVIA, but at least this one would be a lot easier to verify than most of the other song lists. By the way, you might want to specify which portion of WP:NOT it violates -- just citing WP:NOT as a whole doesn't usually cut it. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Vote changed to "weak keep" with a bit of consideration. This is (marginally) encyclopedic in my opinion. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 18:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, a lot of bad lists can be verified easily. List of songs that start with "L" for example. Bulldog123 17:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I don't think either WP:TRIVIA (even though the subject is certainly trivial) and WP:NOT really apply here. Neither does WP:NOT, as the information is clearly not indiscriminate, and WP:LIST does allow for information grouped by theme.  Furthermore, this information is easily verifiable (unlike "List of songs about X").  How encyclopedic is it?  Not much, but I think this is one the very few song list articles that actually has some claim to exist. That said, it'd hardly be a tragedy if it was deleted. Eliminator JR  Talk  18:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep verifiable list and not really trivia. Lugnuts 18:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral This article is doesn't seem like something some would do a search for in an encyclopedia, but it seems more encyclopedic than something that I just WP:ILIKEIT.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete clearly trivial and obviously a list of loosely-associated topics. Malc82 21:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, very much trivial, and verifiable doesn't mean notable. Why not a list of songs with less than 42 words in their lyrics? &mdash; Coren (talk) 21:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete For the most part, while it is verifiable using primary sources, it fails notability if no other sources have covered it, and based on how trivial this is, I'd be willing to be it has not been documented in a reliable source. GassyGuy 22:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 23:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Not attributed and (from what I can see) not attributable. Fails WP:ATT. -- Charlene 05:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * trivia. trivial. delete These pop culture lists are finite, right? Please, say they are. Lie if you have to. There's an end to all this. There just has to be. Kripto 10:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * They are, by my count. Bulldog123 12:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the lists can be constructed recursively, so there is an infinite number of them.  At least, they are countably infinite ($$\aleph_0$$).  &mdash; Coren (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete at least the inclusion criteria is clear, but ultimately not encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 17:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, interesting list. Cedars 03:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Was that a joke !vote? Bulldog123 20:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it was serious. Cedars 12:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep encyclopaedic enough, would be sad to see this go. Don't be so deletionist.  Sala Skan  17:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as listcruft. Compare Articles_for_deletion/List_of_songs_whose_title_does_not_appear_in_the_lyrics.  ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 22:04, 9 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.