Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs with numbers in the title (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 of the debate was delete. Petros471 15:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

List of songs with numbers in the title

 * Previously kept as "mostly harmless" at Articles for deletion/List of songs with numbers in the title.

Not the work of Nintendude, for a change, but still a list of songs selected by arbitrary and inconsistent criteria (you're the one is not the same as one man went to mow, but no comparable widespread usage exists for other numbers). The major problem here is that the concept - songs with numbers in the title - is not probvably significant; if it were a list of ballads, there would be an encyclopaedic topic to back it up, the ballad; in this case there is no evident encyclopaedic significance for the concept of a song with a number in the title. Previous Keep votes were on the grounds of "interesting" or "good", deletes were on a firmer basis, in my view (indiscriminate, unmaintainable). Just zis Guy you know? 14:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and I think the nom brings up a very interesting way of identifing listcruft. If the concept that defines the list isint significant then it is usually listcruft IMO. I'm definatly going to remember that in future. Thanks JzG Ydam 14:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - The current state of contributions to the page (inconsistent criteria or not) isn't really reason to delete the whole thing. How does this nomination differ from the previous rejected one? How is absence of a topic to backup the existence of a number in a song title a 'major problem' with the concept's significance? Certainly you don't need a page to tell you a song you already know has a number in its title, but if you need to find songs you don't know (or have forgotten) with a certain number in the title, this is a handy page and it would be annoying to find it removed. Towelie 14:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: User's 8th edit. --InShaneee 15:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi InShanee, thanks for contributing. In future could you confine your comments to the merits of the article and points for/against, and leave commentary on other users to the Talk pages? Thanks. Towelie 07:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You will note that the current state of the page had little or no part in my nomination. The problem is that it is a list whose premise appears to be of no verifiable significance - a list of arbitraray type of entertainment matching arbitrary (and inconsistently applied) criteria. Just zis Guy you know? 19:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is the sort of thing that can actually be quite interesting and useful to people, and hard to find out anywhere else. Wikipedia really comes into its own with subjects like this. --Bonalaw 14:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * "Hard to find elsewhere" is usually semantically equal to original research. Just zis Guy you know? 19:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it's just that it's the sort of subject that benefits from having lots of people working on it. That's where Wikipedia's strength lies. --Bonalaw 10:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete No possible utility to a list such as this. --InShaneee 15:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Useless trivia. --FuriousFreddy 15:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, hmmm... interesting keep comments above . Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. - Motor (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete as listcruft. "Mostly Harmless" is still harmful. I am also slamming my head on desk (repeatedly until I pass out). Bwithh 18:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Utterly pointless. Don't make meaningless lists just because you can. Honbicot 18:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. And how. -- GWO
 * Keep The community already spoke on this one why are you wasting our time trying to delete something the community already said should not be deleted? Jcuk 20:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Up to a point, Lord Copper. Even if we had a double jeopardy rule, which we don't, no consensus does not mean the community has said it should not be deleted, it means that the community (or rather the ten members who showed up at the debate) did not make up its mind one way or another.  I think this article violates policy, and I can't find a policy which says that an previous no-consensus AfD requires an article be kept in perpetuity. Just zis Guy you know? 20:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete since the distinction between a song with a number in the name and a song without a number in the name is simply unimportant. To those who sugust this is list is usefull.... in what context?  Who will ever find this usefull?  (interesting and usefull are diffrent) ---J.S (t|c) 20:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay I'll bite: someone who will find this useful, to take just one example, is a person responsible for compiling an audio clip that includes sung numbers. One could go on. Failure of imagination re the utility of a page to anyone but oneself is a lousy excuse to go around removing the work of other Wikipedians. Towelie 07:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete listcruft. The community speaks again. Danny Lilithborne 22:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, and as original research, and as completely idiosyncratic non-topic. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC) A concise way to state JzG's point is: "An article entitled 'List of X' should not be created unless there is an article on X." Dpbsmith (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete idiosyncracies make Wikipedia what it is, for better or or worse; in this case, very much for the worse. Far too crufty, and I can't see this as being anything other than OR Jammo (SM247) 23:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Totally pointless list. WarpstarRider 02:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think I can safely attest to the fact that nobody will wake up in the morning and state "I think I'll look up a list of songs with numbers in the title!" '  (Feeling chatty? )(Edits!) 02:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You certainly can not 'safely attest' to nobody needing something just because you failed to imagine it. (see above) Towelie 07:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Apostrophe - LOL! &mdash; Khoikhoi 04:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable listcruft. --Musicpvm 05:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; arbitrary and indiscriminate cruftylistness. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:39, 23 June 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.