Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs with the word "song" in their title or lyrics


 * 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.  Dei zio  talk 19:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

List of songs with the word "song" in their title or lyrics
Although I hate to do it, I nominate this article for deletion. It is hardly enycyclopedic and it will never end! The title, (List of songs with the word "song" in their title or lyrics), is what really got to me. Do we really need a dynamic list of songs and albums that include a single word. What's next, List of songs with the word "of" in their title or lyrics? Furthurmore, I fail to see the importance of the page. D G X  17:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unmaintainable list; WP:NOT. -- stubblyh ea d | T/c 18:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Myspace chain letter cruft. Dominick (TALK) 18:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete arbitrary list. The Deviant 18:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Question Is there a policy regarding songlistcruft? I don't think this list is intrinsically more pointless than, say, List of English songs whose title includes the name of a fictional place, List of theme songs which don't mention their show's name in the lyrics, List of songs with brackets in their titles, List of English songs whose title includes the name of a landmark, List of songs with the name of a musical performer in their title, List of albums which do not contain their title track, List of English songs whose title includes nonsense-words, List of songs whose title includes dates and times, List of songs whose title includes a phone number, List of self-referential songs, List of songs whose titles are composed solely of numbers or List of songs containing covert reference to real musicians. A centralized discussion might be helpful here. David Sneek 18:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thats a really good question, I think WP:NOT covers that. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If afd's don't appear later for the above article, I might have to consider creating one. D G  X  18:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I noticed that some of the lists I mentioned above have been through AfD and survived:, , . (I didn't check them all.) David Sneek 18:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, I didn't think lists like those could even survive an AFD. Well, we'll see I guess. D G  X  19:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, some people go directly in the face of WP:NOT because "It's a cool list!"... The best we can do is to squash them as we can.  The Deviant 19:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete at a quick guesstimate there's over 1,500 entries here and they barely step outside the bounds of the last 20 years. Any serious attempt to make this list ocmplete would result in the servers imploding.  Do we include Dowland's books of songs because they incuded the word song in the name of the book?  Do we include lute songs?  Lieder?  Lieder ohne worte?  A list whose selection criteria are utterly arbitrary and of no known significance, which potentially contains many huyndreds of thousands of songs going back hundreds of years.  Did I let slip the fact that I don't think much of the conept of this list?  I do hope I managed to maintain my legendary air of studied neutrality... Just zis Guy you know? 19:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This is listcruft at its worst. If any of the others ever come up for afd I will hapily vote delete on them. Ydam 19:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The article has existed for more than three years and has been edited over 500 times by a lot of different users and IP-numbers; apparently there is some kind of interest from the community and readers in this list, and I don't really like the idea of just throwing away their work. In the absence of a general policy on "lists of songs according to this or that", and with the above-mentioned lists and AfDs as examples that we keep and maintain many strange things in this field, I'd rather err on the inclusionist side. David Sneek 19:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Thats why I was reluctant at first at nominating the article. It has a long history dating back to 2003. Even though it does have a long history, I still can't get over the fact that this is listcruft. I don't doubt that the lists were made in good-faith but maybe when they were created, they weren't aware of policies like WP:NOT. D G  X  19:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It just seems to me it just took that long for someone to AfD it... Longevity doesn't validate this worthless list of information which is directly against WP:NOT.  The Deviant 19:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Those lists will never be complete or even close to that. So it's more like List of random songs about something...--Ton e  20:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur. The Deviant 20:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree, it's one thing to have a list of songs based around something like it's genre, but just random things doesn't cut it. But I would refran from mass deleting them all per this AFD because seperate Afd's or one AFD that links from them all would be more appropriate.  D G  X  20:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * QUick start list of songs about concurring on deleting song lists Dominick (TALK) 20:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * We might have to rename it to List of songs that have appeared on articles that have been deleted. ;-) D G  X  20:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Wow, I hope someone userfies this before it gets deleted. I cringe at the thought of all those editors' work going down the drain.  Aguerriero  ( talk ) 20:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete- sad as it is to remove so much hard work, the fact is that this list is just not encyclopedic. It's listcruft. Sorry, but it's got to go. Reyk  YO!  20:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete delete delete! Amazing songcruft/listcruft. I am one of the many people to have edited this page, but not because I want it around. If it is to exist, I'd rather it be a bit better, but I'd much more rather it simply not exist. -- Kicking222 21:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I cannot see how this list of trivia will be useful to anyone. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per all above. Vizjim 08:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * please please please please please delete -- Hirudo 14:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. See WP:LC. Stifle (talk) 23:03, 19 May 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.