Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs whose titles are comprised solely of numbers

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Woohookitty 10:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

List of songs whose titles are comprised solely of numbers
Another useless song list, also misuses the word "comprise" &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 03:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. .  Zoe 04:28, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, trivial. -- Kjkolb 04:54, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Listcruft. android  79  05:05, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, lists are not articles, lists have no encyclopedic merit, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". The Literate Engineer 06:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Suggest you look at Featured lists the wub  "?/!"  11:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, but if kept, rename to 'List of crufty inane pointlessness #32973'. Proto t c 10:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and move to List of songs with only numbers in the title. See Votes for deletion/List of songs with numbers in the title which was kept, and this list will be more comprehensive. the wub  "?/!"  11:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - Trivia, not encyclopedic. A list of popes is important, this isn't. Average Earthman 11:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep this is actually one of the more useful lists I've seen about songs. The fact all the song titles are numbers make the items NOT just loosely related. The songs are by well-known bands, so that makes them quite notable. - Mgm|(talk) 11:19, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Conditional delete The fact that all the song titles on the list are, by definition, not in the least bit interesting makes the list itself automatically uninteresting. If someone adds a brief sentence to each song explaining the significance of the title, I'll change my vote. Last Malthusian 11:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Abstain My original reasoning still stands, but I added a few songs to the list and voting for its deletion would be a bit hypocritical ;-) Last Malthusian 13:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and move as suggested. Interesting and, importantly, well defined list. Flowerparty 12:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment No vote. But my perception is that articles like this are contrived exercises by people who wish to create an article and search for something, anything that hasn't been written yet&mdash;as opposed to writing articles for which there is plausibly a real audience. Individual articles of this kind are mostly harmless, but the dynamic of wanting to create new articles rather than edit existing them is not harmless at all, and becomes more and more harmful as Wikipedia's coverage of "legitimate" topics becomes more and more complete. I wish I could suggest something sensible to do about this. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not encyclopaedic. Mind you, Wahoofive, the article title doesn't misuse the word 'comprise', it's just using a very old-fashioned phrase. But that doesn't save it so I'm still with you on this one ;) Peeper 15:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC) (Btw, it does use 'whose' when it should use 'of which' - so it still guilty of crimes against language either way).
 * Au contraire, Peeper, it's using "comprised of" as a synonym of "composed of" that's the modern usage. Traditionally, these titles comprise only numbers. But it's a lost battle, along with "if I was..." &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * keep as an interesting and maintainable list. There is plenty of precedent on Wikipedia. &mdash; brighterorange   (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * keep, seems totally harmless. Sdedeo 17:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep factual, sourced, interesting... it's great!  --Quasipalm 17:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, but regardless of outcome, start a centralized discussion about lists of songs by various criteria so we don't have to do this over and over again. / Alarm 17:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Conditional delete: I roughly agree with Last Malthusian's sentiments. In the unlikely event that anyone has anything interesting to contribute regarding the history or tradition of writing songs whose titles are comprised solely of numbers, I will change my mind, but as it stands, it is utterly trivial. --Lezek 18:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Pointless trivia does not an encyclopedia make...--Isotope23 18:36, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Interesting to those of us who are numbers freaks. Krakatoa 19:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keepable. One of those things Wikipedia is good at. JFW | T@lk  21:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Popintless compendium. Dottore So 22:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I see no evidence that there is some genre or tradition of naming songs after numbers, and therefore any reason to lump all these together. The list is, to my mind, as pointless as a List of songs that were track 7 on their respective album. Sabine's Sunbird 22:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. Being track 7 on their album with make them loosely related topics. Consisting of numbers only makes such a list just as pointless as a list of people by any criteria. The people themselves have nothing to do with each other, but they're linked by a common profession, belief or whatever. - Mgm|(talk) 09:08, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd be more impressed with the list if there was anything you could say about them other than 'they have only numbers in the title', as you can for example with Hidden track and the associated List of hidden tracks. But I shouldn't worry, it isn't going to be deleted anyway. Sabine's Sunbird 19:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. Possibly useful. Andrew pmk | Talk 22:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep SchmuckyTheCat 22:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Gamaliel 23:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 23:29, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yet another useless list of trivia. --Calton | Talk 03:49, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. -Sean Curtin 06:10, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, .  &mdash;RaD Man (talk) 07:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete pointless trivia. not worthy of an encyclopedia article --Mecanismo 18:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, I think the information should be kept.. somewhere Astrokey44 09:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I found it fascinating, actually. :)  R ADICAL B ENDER  &#9733;  19:32, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep; as legitimate as many other song lists here. Owen&times; &#9742;  00:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yet another arbitrary list. / Peter Isotalo 21:18, 11 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.