Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs whose title does not appear in the 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 delete. Chaser - T 03:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

List of songs whose title does not appear in the lyrics

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This page, like the recent Articles for deletion/List of songs about telephones is a list of... article and should be deleted, like a lot of the others. However, this may be an interesting list (per here) and may not be deleted. Astrale01talkcontribs 02:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per nom. Astrale01talkcontribs 02:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Songs that don't have the title anywhere in the lyrics are fairly rare, and the subject of the list, is definitely encyclopedic due to the rarity. I see no loose assocation at all in this list's topic, nor do I see the list as indiscriminate. For instance, the eight bajillion songs with titles like "(something) Blues" or "Ballad of (something)" are omitted, unless the (something) part isn't in the song either. It also seems much more easily verifiable -- just a cursory glance of the lyrics can tell you if a song's title is in the lyrics or not, whereas a cursory lyric glance may not always tell you whether or not a song is about (insert subject here). Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 02:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. An anon nuked the AfD tag; I put it back. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 03:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete While I find the topic a interesting, I disagree that songs that fit this critera are rare. It seems like a narrow selection of artists have been considered for the list so far, and I feel the actual list would be thousands of songs, just counting songs by notable rock bands alone. Maybe there's some way of narrowing the list to songs that made the top 40, or some other criteria.  Citi Cat  04:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per TenPoundHammer. Unlike the other lists of songs recently discussed, this one is unlikely to become too long to be useful. JulesH 09:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This list could conceivably include every instrumental song ever written. It can't see how discriminate that would be. -- Charlene 10:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, since it's "appear in the lyrics", one would assume that only songs that actually have lyrics are included... Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 01:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete It might be rare in something like modern rock for song lyrics not to include their title, but this (unsourced) claim simply doesn't apply to all music. As Charlene has noted above, every instrumental song ever written would have to be included here, and there there are plenty of classical songs, with vocalists, but with titles like "Opus No. 4". There simply would be no end to this list. Charlie 14:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, since it's "appear in the lyrics", one would assume that only songs that actually have lyrics are included... Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 01:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per the previous two users. This could be a long list unless it's restricted to modern rock songs or the like. There's also a lot of "Theme for..." song titles, etc. Several modern bands seem to delight in nonsensical titles that appear nowhere in the song (e.g., Panic at the Disco). JJL 16:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Perhaps there should be a separate section for bands like PATD!. I think that that would not only highlight those songs, but give the readers an idea that some bands often choose nonsensical or irrelavant names. Another idea which may help is putting songs into genres, or possibly making separate pages for diffent genres. Just some thoughts...Bmrbarre 21:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Charlene and Charlie failed to read the preface to the page stating that instrumental pieces are excluded, as well as some other limitations. I would strongly support limiting the list to pop/rock genre songs that charted or cuts from albums that charted ONLY.  I thought of submitting "Battle Hymn of the Republic" and "America ("My Country 'tis of Thee"), but respected this (unwritten) rule, and only submitted pop/rock songs traceable to a hit single or album.BigJerME 18:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment In a non-scientific survey, I checked The Who, because I know many of their lyrics. I took their main 10 albums (not counting the new one), and came up with this: "Instant Party", "A Quick One While He's Away", "Glow Girl", "Baba O'Reily","Helpless Dancer","Cook's County","Success Story" and "The Dirty Jobs" (there may be more, I just did this quickly). This is just one band chosen at random. Now how many rock bands are there in Wikipedia?  Citi Cat  21:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the preface on the page, the title of the article does not specify this parameter, and in that sense, the article's content fails to live up to the title. Charlie 05:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. I believe that all "List of songs whose title…" articles are indiscriminate by nature, since the mention or nonmention of any particular class of thing (including words from the songs' own lyrics) in the titles fails to establish any significant quality shared by the songs themselves. Further narrowing the criteria for admission, as has been suggested above, would simply be adding new layers of arbitrariness. I also disagree that the number of songs that fit this description is manageably small—I can think of many that aren't included in the current list (Mamas & Papas' "Creeque Alley"; Beatles' "Tomorrow Never Knows"; a variety of Dylan songs not listed yet; etc.), and I stopped listening to up-to-date pop/rock around 1972. Sweep away the lot of such articles, say I. Deor 19:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Because I said so. GhostBoy66 22:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep as being just on the right side of an indiscriminate list. There are clear inclusionary criteria at the top of the page, so while this list is presumably going to be relatively large, it's also going to be quite clear what's in and out. This also strikes me as being one of the more encyclopedic "Lists of songs relating to quality X" articles out there. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to make an estimate of how long this list would be, I have taken a one of my favorite albums and chosen That Was the Year That Was. "MLF Lullaby", "George Murphy", and "So Long, Mom (A Song for World War III)" are all songs where the full title never appears directly in the lyrics. There is of course difference between albums here, and I'll admit that as the list is defined, only "George Murphy" would make the list, but I think that in terms of order of magnitude, the number of such songs is about as big as the number of albums in existence. While songs with the list's criterion are definitely in the minority, they are by no means outstanding. The fact that the title does not appear in the lyrics, has absolutely no impact on the experience of the song, it is not something one would react to, I think most listeners to the music would not give the thing a second glance. Furthermore, the list puts together songs which have really nothing to do with each other. In terms of Lists_in_Wikipedia, I cannot see how this list is useful, provides an understanding of music, or valuable. No publications exist documenting the significance of titles not being in the lyrics, and I don't think there is any, bringing up the spectre of original research. Delete. Sjakkalle  (Check!)  10:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - this, like many other lists of songs based on the title, bring together songs which have nothing in common thematically. It is therefore a directory of loosely-associated topics and should be deleted. Otto4711 18:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wasn't it deleted already? Anyway, I vote keep per my comments on previous VfDs of this.  Grue   19:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: not only is this an interesting article, it collects many songs which all have one thing in common: the title is not located in the name of the song. There are no other articles like this, and it fills a void in Wikipedia. Bmrbarre 20:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Possible Compromise I would think a solution would be to put the world "popular" in front of "songs" in the topic sentence of the article and possibly the title. Obviously, the word popular has no exact meaning, but could be interpreted to mean hit songs, songs with regular radio airplay, etc. This might keep the article manageable.  Citi Cat  22:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment That sounds a lot better. More people who see the page will recognize the songs on it, and it will keep the list shorter. I foresee many arguments as to songs being "popular", however. Good idea otherwise, though. Bmrbarre 23:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - leaving aside the definitional problems inherent in using the word "popular" in an article title, the compromise doesn't address the issue that the songs have nothing in common beyond a coincidence of title formation. Otto4711 23:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.  -- Pax:Vobiscum 22:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Violates WP:NOT (and, although not a policy, it borderlines on WP:CRUFT).  It's a non-discriminate list of information which, if given the chance, can grow to enormous length and little purpose.  Surely there's a better way to organize lists of songs.  Also, I strongly disagree with the above suggestion of adding "popular" to the list title; it's a blatant violation of WP:NPOV; who's to say which song is popular?  Bestselling would make more sense, and yet there's still an issue with what songs should be listed.  "List of bestselling songs of the last three decades whose title does not appear in the lyrics that is of course if the song has lyrics to begin with..."? ;) María ( habla  con migo ) 13:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Utter listcruft in clear violation of WP:UNENC. These songs have nothing whatsoever in common other than this one quirk of lexicography and therefore it is quite clearly a list of indiscriminate information. A1octopus 18:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 21:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is an extremely trivial characteristic and the list will never be complete. --musicpvm 01:19, 8 June 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.