Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs with the same name as song artists (2nd 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. Waltontalk 16:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

List of songs with the same name as song artists
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a collection of loosely-associated topics. These songs have nothing in common beyond the coincidence of titling. They are not otherwise associated or associatable by style or theme. Otto4711 15:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 17:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * DeleteComment. This is a very very cool list.  I wish there were a good place to transwiki it.  It ought to exist as a web page somewhere, but I have to agree that it doesn't belong in wikipedia.  Current, eponymous song redirects to this page.  It think there should be a page about eponymous songs, but it should be a description not a list. Was going to vote for weak delete, but looked at arguments from previous afd and was swayed.  I'm hesitant to keep sending stuff to afd that has passed before.  Capmango 17:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - the first AFD closed 31 December 2005. I think there's been long enough between the two AFDs that it's reasonable to reconsider. Otto4711 20:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment- Here's the diff showing the changes to the page since it last survived an AfD. The growth itself is interesting! Maybe the page needs more expansion on the eponymus idea.  -wizzard2k  ( C &#x2022;  T  &#x2022;  D ) 18:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Interesting list on a fairly notable topic. "These songs have nothing in common beyond the coincidence of titling"...but that is a notable coincidence.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep- It appears that it satisfies the recommendations for a stand-alone list, and isn't as bad as listcruft. -wizzard2k  ( C &#x2022;  T  &#x2022;  D ) 19:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment the standalone list guideline is a guideline. Conforming to a guideline does not excuse violations pf policy. Otto4711 20:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if the policy you're citing is the WP:NOT part, I think that's meant more in terms of associations that don't have any real meaning. I can't see where WP:NOT would apply here. Certainly its open to interpretation, but I think the subject can possibly serve some genuine purpose if altered to a category-type layout, with an article entry about eponymous songs. -wizzard2k  ( C &#x2022;  T  &#x2022;  D ) 15:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that these songs have a similarity of title has no real meaning. Otto4711 16:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. If it's kept, get rid of the unnecessary, duplicated, redundant titles (leaving only exceptions like Force III and Force IV). Clarityfiend 20:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment from WP:LC "The list has no content beyond links to other articles, so would be better implemented as a (self-maintaining) category". Just as for Famous Streets, this seems like the perfect solution (I don't suppose anyone has automated the process of converting a list into a category?  It'll be a lot of work for someone).  What we should end up with is a short, sweet eponymous song article and an eponymous songs category that applies to all the songs in the list. Capmango 20:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not a bad idea... I'll look around at WP:CATP -wizzard2k  ( C &#x2022;  T  &#x2022;  D ) 20:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think AWB can add categories to a bunch of pages, if someone who has access to that tool wants to check into that... -wizzard2k  ( C &#x2022;  T  &#x2022;  D ) 21:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, as per Wizard. Lugnuts 14:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * delete as per nom - non notable trivia IdreamofJeanie 15:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. (Ibaranoff24 04:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC))
 * Delete There might be a clear criteria for entry onto to this list but it's still unecyclopedic. A1octopus 20:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Indrian 08:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as trivial per nom. Eluchil404 18:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete crufty, pointless trivia - G  1  ggy  Talk/Contribs 22:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. List does not offer any commentary on the subject and probably could not. I'm not sure who is looking for this article either. The Filmaker 02:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge (with God-knows-what). Thousands of monkeys on thousands of typewriters pounding away until the end of time will never enter "List of songs with the same name as song artists" into a Search field.--Mike18xx 09:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions.   -- --  pb30 < talk > 16:34, 14 June 2007 (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.