Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs whose title includes a phone number (second 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 22:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

List of songs whose title includes a phone number

 * List of songs whose title includes a phone number was nominated for deletion on 2005-10-02. The result of the dicsussion was "keep".  For the prior discussion, see Articles for deletion/List of songs whose title includes a phone number.

Listcruft fails WP:NOT, has no place in an encyclopedia, take it to Creem or Tiger Beat'' L0b0t 14:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, per my nomination.L0b0t 14:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * DELETE per nomJoshTyler 14:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)- Josh
 * DELETE (335383) per nom. Purely trivial name list. --Vossanova o&lt; 15:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC) Abstain.  There are too many unnominated categories in Category:Lists of songs with special titles to judge one but not the others. --Vossanova o&lt; 15:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, we are getting to those as well, have a little patience. L0b0t 15:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I repeat what I wrote the last time around: The list's selection criteria are neither excessively narrow nor excessively broad. The list does not contain an inherent bias, and is not by its nature an original research magnet as some other lists are.  Yes, this is slanted towards people who come to Wikipedia looking for answers to trivia quiz questions.  But so are the thirty-five articles listed at Template:Lists of US Presidents and Vice Presidents.  And it is conceivable that a person who knew of one song whose title includes a telephone number would want to know whether there were others.  Keep. Uncle G 16:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, Again I must stress, that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of trivial lists. ALL these lists need to go.  Start a fansite, start a wiki, keep this cruft out of the encyclopedia. L0b0t 16:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Template:Lists of US Presidents and Vice Presidents says otherwise. Uncle G 17:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Lists are useful and interesting! --164.107.92.120 16:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete there being no encyclopaedic topic songs whose title includes a phone number, this is an arbitrary list. Guy 16:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no encyclopaedia topic previous occupations of United States Presidents, yet you'll have a hard time making a case that this is grounds for deletion of List of United States Presidents by previous occupation. That a standalone list does not have another article for it to be paired up with is not a reason for not having the standalone list, and does not make a list arbitrary.  Standalone list articles have introductory sections for a reason, after all. The reasons for not having lists are whether the list's selection criteria are either excessively narrow or excessively broad, whether the list is original research, whether the list is unverifiable, and whether the list is inherently non-neutral.  We addressed those concerns a year ago, in the first AFD discussion.  My rationale from that discussion is repeated above.  Nothing has changed. Uncle G 17:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. -- Kf4bdy talk contribs 17:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1-800-DELETE Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of songs whose title includes a phone number.-- Hús  ö  nd  17:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's self-contradictory to say that something is indiscriminate and then to give its quite precise discrimination criterion in the same breath. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" is not an indiscriminate criterion for deletion. It is not a handy synonym for "I want this deleted.".  This list is not one of the topics given at WP:NOT. Uncle G 18:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree, cannot follow your self-contradictory point. The fact that lists such as this are not specifically mentioned in the topics given at WP:NOT does not mean that it doesn't apply here. I don't just stick to those accurate topics, I prefer to follow the statement above them - "something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia". And that statement, I believe, applies here.-- Hús  ö  nd  19:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That statement is simple a restatement of our "verifiability, not truth" maxim. If you are saying that it applies, then please explain, in light of things like this, this, this, this, and even specific information like this and this, how this article is unverifiable. Uncle G 19:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, no, no. Please do not attempt to manipulate my positions. Cruft is one thing, verifiability is another thing. I do not agree with your immediate association. In fact, I think that my position was quite plain and not really atypical, I do not understand why is this dispute arising. :-/ -- Hús  ö  nd  21:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The only person who is manipulating your position is you. When it is pointed out that list of things that Wikipedia not in the section of WP:NOT that you refer to does not cover topics such as these you change your position to being that the article falls foul of a sentence at the beginning of that section.  When it is pointed out that that sentence is a simple restatement of our "verifiability, not truth" maxim, and that the article is verifiable from sources such as the aforemented and others, you are now changing your position again.  Your position is repeatedly changing, by the way, because you don't have a solid hook in our policies and guidelines to hang it off.  And the reason for that is because the article subject doesn't fall foul of them.  As I explained above, the issues of verifiability, original research, neutrality, and whether the scope of the list was either excessively narrow or excessively broad, were all discussed last year.  Nothing has changed, and the article subject doesn't fall foul of any of them. Uncle G 21:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I reject your argumentation. It is neither sound nor plausible. I still see no reason for keeping this and I am slightly displeased by your particular method to discredit my stance. I believe that I still have the right to state my positions without having them entangled with arguments that attempt to make them sound awkward. I reiterate my position for deletion.-- Hús  ö  nd  22:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep They still have the Glenn Miller song as their music on hold at the Pennsylvania Hotel. Interesting article, encyclopedic, sourced, not at all random collection. There are a finite number of such songs, and it is pretty easy to determine whether or not one belongs, but it would be hard to find them without such an article. Edison 18:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The list actually contains interesting annotations and notes at the end. Also, I agree with Uncle G that the scope is not unduly arbitrary, because any reasonable editor can figure out whether a song has a phone number in it or not.-- danntm T C 19:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Unlike the endless parade of stuff like "Lists of songs about missing my boo", the criterion is rare enough for a fixed number of songs to match. Danny Lilithborne 20:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per all above Jcuk 22:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Stong Delete - encyclopedia-esq???? NO 4.18GB 23:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete no value whatsoever. Arbusto 00:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and kudos to UncleG for his resolve - you sold me. The list has no value to me, but my personal interest in it is not especially relevent.  The real question is whether there is a sufficiently notable connection between the items on the list to be of interest to people beyond some tiny subculture.  The comments above plus the citations of similar lists from UncleG suggest that there is sufficient interest. The list then also meets the secondary issues of being sufficiently defined, neither excessively broad nor excessively narrow, etc. -Kubigula (ave) 05:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all lists of X with unassociated unencyclopedic attribute Y. There is nothing notable about the attribute of having a phone number in a title. MLA 07:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Absolutely useless. Listcruft. Who cares? Ect. I agree that maybe someone should set up their own wiki and have lists of songs with whatever there. Will this be important in 10 years? Is this important now? No. -Royalguard11 (Talk·Desk) 02:29, 3 November 2006 (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.