Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs whose title includes a phone number (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 delete. Krimpet (talk) 01:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

List of songs whose title includes a phone number

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Lists can certainly be quite useful, but this is taking it a bit too far. We don’t need a list of everything that can possibly be listed. Delete as Listcruft and per WP:NOT. As far as I can tell from the links, 3 real pages link here. This has been through AfD twice; it was Kept in October 2005 and got no consensus in November 2006. -- BlastOButter42 See  Hear  Speak  01:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely-associated topics. The songs have nothing in common beyond happening to have a phone number in the name and are otherwise unrelated. Otto4711 01:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, it's an indiscriminate list. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 01:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Uncle G's comments in the previous afd. --- RockMFR 04:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per RockMFR, by which I mean per Uncle G elsewhere. Maxamegalon2000 05:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, idiosyncratic list with a non-notable underlying concept.-- Nydas (Talk) 07:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm pretty much a deletionist, but Wikipedia is not paper and it's far more interesting than many other articles here that most people would never dream of deleting. There's no major reason to get rid of this, and the fact that it survived two votes already makes it seem like certain people are just pulling the we're going to vote until I get the answer I want thing. DreamGuy 08:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't like it when people keep trying again and again to get an article deleted because they don't like it.  Plus I agree with Dream Guy   Theophilus75 22:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - over a year went by between the first AFD and the second during which time consensus was modified from "keep" to "no consensus." Six months passed between the second and the third. Hardly the mark of an organized effort to nominate and renominate until the desired result is achieved, and suggesting that the nominator is engaged in that sort of conduct strikes me as something of a failure to assume good faith. Otto4711 13:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - a list of indiscriminate, unencyclopedic information if ever there was one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete listcruft Hut 8.5 09:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. My first thought when I saw this was "wow, we certainly have everything here... but what is it for??" Unencyclopedic.  Cat tleG irl  '' talk 09:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for the same reason as Otto4711. Punkmorten 09:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete some lists are useful. This isn't one of those.  Lankiveil 10:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete, but turn into a category. As per nom. Dalejenkins 15:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no way this would stand as a category. Otto4711 00:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Thanks a lot, now I have that song in my head.
 * Delete per nom. Time for Ricky to lose that number....Carlossuarez46 02:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Uncle G's comments in past discussions. Most of the arguments I'm seeing for deletion are too vague or flimsy to convince me otherwise. Terms like "indiscriminate" and "unencyclopedic" need some fleshing out before we can have a real discussion here. Zagalejo 03:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Where else would I find this information if I had a need for it? ...and as a radio programme director I can think of plenty of reasons why I might. --Gene_poole 03:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see what's 'indiscrimate' about this list, it has very clear criteria for inclusion. As Gene Poole says, this list is going to be useful to some hard pressed radio producer - or Bob Dylan in theme time radio hour.  Saying that it's incomplete is an argument for adding songs to it, not deleting the whole article.  Wikipedia isn't paper. Nick mallory 04:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that Wikipedia is not paper does not mean that every article gets a free pass. Regardless of the storage medium of the information on Wikipedia, any individual article still has to meet the appropriate policies and guidelines. Otto4711 18:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per Uncle G's comments in previous AFDs. JavaTenor 05:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, trivia, not encyclopedic.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, I know we aren't supposed to use our basis as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I think that if we have articles about songs with names, songs with places, and songs under one minute, we might as well have this one, too. Useight 15:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Good to know that you understand that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping this article. Otto4711 18:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. As noted above, the criterion for inclusion is crystal-clear, and self-verifying.  Third AFD, and sometimes consensus does not change. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per the wise arguments made by Uncle G in previous debates, common sense has not changed since. Burntsauce 17:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fairly indiscriminate reason for grouping these songs together, and can never be complete. - fchd 17:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, I must confess that the comments from Uncle G which seem to be cliching it for so many people seem to be eluding me. His arguments in both previous debates are pretty weak.-- Nydas (Talk) 18:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as an indiscriminate list of information. Acalamari 22:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.  -- Pax:Vobiscum 09:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Just because it's true (and sourced) doesn't mean that it should be included in Wikipedia. Even if the article itself is not indiscriminate (i.e. it has clear inclusion criteria), that doesn't mean that WP:NOT doesn't apply. In my opinion this article is not of any encyclopedic use. Pax:Vobiscum 10:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete but Categorise - This is worthy of a category but not an article. A1octopus 18:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment to those citing Uncle G - his argument in the last AFD is quite uncompelling. He cites a guideline for lists but his cited guideline states that the creator (and by extension, the defenders) of a list must be prepared to explain why the list contributes to the state of human knowledge. I don't see any such explanation in any of the AFDs of this article. He goes on to cite a slew of lists about presidents of the United States to justify this list. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a compelling argument. Each article must pass policies and guidelines on its own regardless of the existence of any other article. Even if one were to ignore that flaw in his argument, since the last AFD of this article a number of those lists have been deleted, so that particular reed has grown rather slenderer. Finally he states that it is possible that someone might be interested in this information. We delete articles every day that people are interested in, because they don't meet policies or guidelines. That somethign is interesting is not automatic grounds for its inclusion in Wikipedia. Uncle G's arguments are weak, they do not address the objections to this list raised in the nomination, and opinions relying on them should be discounted. Otto4711 19:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. As Uncle G pointed out, this list is well-defined and unlikely to attract original research. Furthermore, the songs listed do have something in common: they lead people to call the numbers, a fact that has been noted and even used as a form of marketing. See this article, particularly the last paragraph.  &mdash;Cel  ithemis  21:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The linked article cites two songs which have inspired crank calls (one of which, Alicia Keys' Diary, does not have a phone number in its title) and speculates about a third. If you think that is notable, feel free to write List of songs which have inspired prank telephone calls and see how that develops. In the meantime, these songs are still a loosely-associated list of things with nothing in common but the presence of some digits in the title. A list can follow the list guidelines by being well-defined in inclusion criteria and still be unsuitable for Wikipedia if it fails policy. Otto4711 21:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the main policies in question (not indiscriminate, not a directory...) are perhaps the vaguest policies on Wikipedia. Zagalejo 00:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Or it could be that you like the article and you don't like the policy. Otto4711 04:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge? This article is rather similar to List of songs about telephones, with many songs appearing in both lists. Are both really required? Or could they be merged into a single article, thus removing one "pointless" list but still keeping the basic information? (Mabuzzer 14:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC))
 * Delete Believe it's been said but this is just a directory of loosely associated things which Wikipedia is not. Can't believe this survived AfD twice.  Goodnight  mush  Talk


 * 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.