Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs with city names in the title


 * 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.    Sandstein   19:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

List of songs with city names in the title

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Nominated for the same reason as its recently deleted sister article, List of songs with state names in the title. Like the aformentioned article, I initially prodded this on the grounds that it was unencyclopaedic, but the tag was removed by the author. The sister article was deleted a day or so ago per AFD discussion, so, considering this list is essentially the same thing, I decided to take this here as well. Mizu onna sango15 / 水 女 珊瑚15  07:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Entertaining, sure. But trivial and unencyclopedic, especially when you consider the unforgiveable sin of having skipped over the Stompin' Tom Connors opus "Sudbury Saturday Night". Okay, that last bit's not really part of my reasoning. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as trivial and not encyclopedic. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, has no place here. Punkmorten (talk) 08:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Trivial and unencyclopedic.  a s e nine  say what?  09:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.   —ErgoSum88 (talk) 09:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Child, are you a deletionist? And I said Ma'am I am tonight! Delete JuJube (talk) 10:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I can name literally hundreds not already on this list. Proof indeed that such a list is indiscriminate in nature. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 14:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Oh puh-lease. Trivial and unencyclopedic.  Madman (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Lists (discriminate and organized list). Referencing issues should be solved per SOFIXIT.  Even if a similar article was deleted, it's irrelevant, because 1) consensus can change and 2) such an argument is essentially ALLORNOTHING anyway.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment— Consensus can change, but it is not at all likely that it will change after just two days, as it has been. It appears that the general consensus here so far is still to delete it; And, furthermore, I nom'd this because it has the exact same problems as the other list; There is absolutely no difference between this and the other, besides the fact that one happens to involve city names, and one has to do with state names. Both indiscriminate, and unencyclopaedic. I don't see any way we can make this article encyclopaedic at all, as the notion of a list about songs with cities/states in the title itself (and there are a lot of songs like this, therefore making it unmaintainable) was dead on arrival. Mizu onna sango15 / 水 女 珊瑚15  18:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as trivia.--Berig (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Indiscriminate, trivia, nothing encyclopedic about this.  KleenupKrew (talk) 17:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's indiscriminate, trivial and although I like little lists like these, it violates WP:LISTS. I'm not going to complain about missing songs (like "Chicago" by Sufjan Stevens) because if I really wanted to I could just add before it's inevitable deletion Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 18:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Trivia is encyclopedic. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as trivial and non-encyclopedic. However, there may be some other GFDL-compliant wiki that would take the article, such as the Music Wiki. The article could be transwikied over there if they want it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: If the material is acceptable for other encyclopedias and Wikis then it is acceptable on the one that is a compendium of both general and specialized encyclopedias as well as almanacs. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep There is a "Lists of songs" category out there and this article fits it. If you delete this, delete every song in said category. GeoffEighinger (talk) 20:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment— What you're saying is WP:ALLORNOTHING. This article fails several guidelines/policies and is unencyclopaedic, as is the other list. I am not nominating this just because I don't like it. This list just doesn't seem to meet the necessary criteria for inclusion at Wikipedia, and, per TPH, there are hundreds of songs that could be on this article, and the only thing they have in common is that they have city names in the title. -- Mizu onna sango15 / 水 女 珊瑚15  03:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:IMPERFECT. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ballad of Delete City' Sounds like a good idea to me. If there's not a rule called "WP:PYRAMID", there should be.  If the title of the article sounds like a clue on the game show "Pyramid", then it's more of a parlor game and less of an encyclopedia article.  A list of songs with ____ in the title is not likely to last.  On the other hand, a list of songs that refer to city council meetings as part of their lyrics... might be a keeper. Mandsford (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Any arguement to keep could be applied to any list of anything "List of films with colours in the title", "List of books featuring characters with names of fruit" etc etc. Unencyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yobmod (talk • contribs) 14:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, which is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 15:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't apply here because Yobmod is explaining *why* it's unencyclopaedic. Basically, he says that using this standard we would fill the encyclopedia with useless lists. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It applies, because what's useless to some, is useful to others, and thus that just adds to the subjectivity of the argument. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete If a song is notable for a certain city, then list it at the city article. This is an indiscriminate collection of unrelated stuff --Enric Naval (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a discrminate collection of related stuff, i.e. songs with city names in the title. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, Lists need to be more than organized, they need to have meaningful commonalities, which this is not. Graevemoore (talk) 05:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * They are all songs that all have city names all in the titles, which makes three meaningful commonalities. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Meaningful is an inherently subjective term, and I feel that simply having a vague similarity in the name doesn't do anything. Why not "List of songs beginning with A"? "List of songs with three words in the title"?Graevemoore (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Inherently subjective terms include "non-notable" and "unencyclopedic." Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's correct. The terms "reliable", "independent", and "substantial" are all subjective. That doesn't mean that we can't argue for their application in certain circumstances. And if there is a consensus that a connection is not meaningful, then the appropriate action is taken. Every day, legal systems around the world do the same with "Reasonable doubt", "due care", and "probable cause". "Subjective" does not mean "unactionable". Graevemoore (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This is exactly what I am talking about. Per Graevemoore, these songs have almost nothing to do with each other. We might as well have an article called "List of songs containing the preposition 'in'". This doesn't make any sense. Lists have to be useful. We needn't an article that serves no purpose but briefly display song titles which happen to have city (or state) names in the title. However, if you like, LGRdC, we could turn this into a category. What do you think? Mizu onna sango15 / 水 女 珊瑚15  00:01, 16 May 2008 (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.