Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Songs in triple meter


 * 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 to delete (7d, 2k). This is a difficult one. If any sysop disagrees with this conclusion, feel free to revert me. - Mailer Diablo 14:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Songs in triple meter
Trivial and unmaintainable list &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * comment - "trivial and unmaintainable" are not criteria listed on Deletion policy. This {afd} was initiated outside of procedure.  --  Geo Swan 12:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Policy in question is WP:NOT. Xoloz 03:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * comment - many voters here have justified their deletion votes on the grounds that this list is "listcruft". What is listcruft?  It is not listed on WP:DEL.  I just did a google search of listcruft, restricted to wikipedia.org.  It got just 80 hits.  Most from within the last month.   Most from other {afd} discussions. If it is not a criteria listed on WP:DEL voters shouldn't be basing their vote on it.  If we have a cabal of anti-listcrufters shouldn't they do the open democratic thing, and lobby to amend the official deletion criteria?  --  Geo Swan 12:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Listcruft is shorthand for unmaintainable, arbitrary and unencyclopaedic lists. Cruft is essentially electronic flotsam.  The problem with lists of this type is that unless they are studiously miantained they end up being misleading, either through absence of notable examples of which the author is personally unaware, or because the author loses interest, or whatever.  This is distinct form categorisation, which is self-maintaining (many Wikipedians spend hours adding correct category tags to articles).  So a category for music in triple metre would show notable songs in triple metre - that is good.  A list of sings in triple metre is always going to be arbitrary (indeed, the selection of tripel metre is itself arbitrary), and WP:ISNOT an indiscriminate collection of information. - Just zis Guy, you know? 13:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I am going to suggest that discussions here should be transparent. Contributors coming here should be able to understand what is being discussed even if they are not privy to the private short-hands of long-term followers of deletion discussions.
 * This is your personal definition of "listcruft"? It is not defined anywhere on the wikipedia?  How can anyone have any confidence that the other people who use this term mean the same thing by it as you do?
 * The perceptions that an article is "unmaintainable", "arbitrary" or "unencyclopaedic" are not listed as valid criteria for deletion.
 * Other contributors have suggested that this should be a category, not an article containing a list. Categories can be, IMO, a very weak reed.  Some categories work well.  A lot dont.  There are categories where you look at the items, and are mystified how anyone could ever think they were related.  With a list, the list is prefaced with the criteria for inclusion.  Take a look at a short rant I wrote about non-obvious categorization.
 * The design of the wikipedia software makes lists innately more maintainable than categories. You can put an article that contains a list on your watchlist.  And, when someone modifies that article, you can examine how it changed, through the history mechanism, form your opinion as to whether the edit was questionable.  But there are no watchlists for changes to categories.  The interested person doesn't get advised when questionable entries are made, or when a vandal deletes the category from an article that does belong.  --  Geo Swan 15:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Not entirely true. For example, on my user page, I have link to Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:UCLA basketball. Additions to the category are easily viewed. Deletions are another story. -- howcheng  [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 06:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete unless someone can convince me why I should care. I don't mean that rudely; I know what a key signature is, but I don't know why it would matter that much for any kind of music.  If someone can tell me it matters, I'm all ears.  A2Kafir 20:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Change vote to neutral. I'm not qualified to comment, I've decided.  A2Kafir 20:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's rare for pop music songs to be in triple meter. If this were List of pop music songs in triple meter it would be a list with fairly narrow inclusion criteria. Uncle G 21:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Uninteresting is not a valid criteria for deletion. Paper encyclopedias contain articles that are uninteresting, because encyclopedias serve as reference resources.
 * No one is smart enough to follow every field of human endavour. We have to be tolerant of the interests of others.  We have to be tolerant of the views of others.     A couple of weeks ago I participated in the discussion of a star.  I was frankly shocked by the narrow-mindedness of some of those voting to delete.  They were uninterested in Astronomy, so those interested in Astronomy couldn't add to the wikipedia's material on Astronomy?  --  Geo Swan 16:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. What's next, List of songs in 5/4 time? List of songs in 7/4 time? List of songs in 9/16 time? Listcruft to the max. -- howcheng  [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 21:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Those are already covered in List of works in irregular time signatures. Uncle G 21:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Looks like I'm wrong on this one. I would support a list with a narrower scope, a la Uncle G's suggestion. -- howcheng  [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 22:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep- I started this song list with the intent that it mostly cover songs from the 1990s and later in an effort to show that 3/4 and 6/8 has had a resurgence in popularity and commercial vitality.  It used to be more or less reserved for Honky Tonk, Country, Blues, Jazz, etc, but now it's quite popular in Metal (Tool, Perfect Circle, Chevelle), Indie (Quasi, Elliott Smith, Death Cab For Cutie) and even rap/ hip-hop (Camron, Outkast).  And as far as List of songs in 5/4 time? List of songs in 7/4 time? goes, those songs are contained on List of works in irregular time signatures.  I hope to convince y'all that this list is NOT trivial and if it becomes unmaintainable (i.e. too long) it can be separated into shorter lists covering shorter time spans.  And it's a time signature, not a key signature.  I think it's a real trend that is going on in modern American music right now, but I do realize that it's beneath most peoples' radars.  Most people just don't think that way about music.  Can anyone back me up here?  I'm definitely not opposed to changing the name of the page to reflect a more narrow scope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.30.156.36 (talk • contribs) 2005-10-28 21:50:00 UTC
 * Restrict it to the 1990s and later, and you'll exclude "We All Stand Together (with The Frog Chorus)", released in 1984. Uncle G 22:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If indeed there is a resurgence of interest in 3/4 meter, won't this list immediately become impossibly huge? &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 04:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Users should be able to find examples of songs in this musical meter. Kappa 21:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete listcruft. The number of songs in triple metre is probably beyond comprehension and certainly beyond cataloguing here.  I have a book of English songs dating back to the 17th and 18th Centuries and a good number of them are in triple metre. - Just zis Guy, you know? 22:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * So users should not be able to find any examples of songs in this meter? Kappa 02:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete because based on what 12.30.156.36 says, what we have here is a corpus of source material for a piece of interesting original research that does not belong in Wikipedia. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep if restricted to 1990s and later per Uncle G's argument (I kid!), delete otherwise. &mdash; mendel &#9742; 23:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, trivia. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 00:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * So users should not be able to find any examples of songs in this meter? Kappa 02:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Easily fixed: add a category for 3/4 metre (and any other metre for that matter), and any notable songs about which there are entries will be added over time withut the need to remember to maintain a separate list. - Just zis Guy, you know? 13:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * keep IF it stays 90s and after in pop, rock, popular music in general.  Any thing else would be too expansive.  3/4 is cool128.104.51.236 01:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * So "list of songs meeting an arbitrary and common criterion" is deletable but "list of songs meeting an arbitrary and common criterion and written after an arbitrary date" is a keeper? - Just zis Guy, you know? 08:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * What about "list of songs meeting an arbitrary date and common criterion within an arbitrary timespan"? Suppose there was List of pop songs in triple meter in the 1990s and more lists for other decades? Then the "cutoff date" problem disappears. -- howcheng  [ talk &#149; contribs &#149; web ] 06:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Leaving only the problem of why this might be considered in any way unusual. What is the essential difference between this and a list of cars available in blue? Clearly there is a difference, since we all know that songs in 3/4 are actually quite unusual in some genres.  Will this list include only those genres?  Or will the notable cases simple be swamped by non-notable cases from genres where triple metre is more common?  Would Mendelssohn's Lieder ohne Worte be included?  I am still struggling to see what purpose this article fulfills in the context of an encyclopaedia. - Just zis Guy, you know? 13:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete yet more music listcruft. MCB 01:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * So users should not be able to find any examples of songs in this meter? Kappa 02:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I have to be honest. I'd prefer reading an article on 12.30.156.36's hypothesis. However, I agree that would be original research, and that wikipedia is not the place for that. The list itself, however, is not original research, and could prove very telling as time goes by simply by existing. Fascinating. Keep! Jacqui  ★ 06:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * An article on triple metre with a few examples might be interesting, but a list of songs in triple metre (with or without the addition of an arbitrary date criterion) is surely just listcruft - unmaintainable and unencyclopaedic - Just zis Guy, you know? 08:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I may have argued this way before myself, but I am starting to think against it. The logic is, so just because we Wikipedia editors don't do our proper job of maintenance (which could include changing the list criteria, I admit), then that means that users don't deserve to have the information. Imagine if we argued that way about Wikipedia itself -- "Well, it's so large, there will always be crappy articles around the edges that we can't get to." Does that mean we flush Wikipedia down the toilet because we don't want to maintain it? I hope not. Jacqui  ★ 16:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Consider this: the accurate title for this article is "list of songs in an arbitrary metre which is uncommon in some genres, written after an arbitrary date, and which are known to the subset of people who realise this page is here and are motivated to add them, up to and including the date of last revision, but without any attempt being made to explain why that metre is unusual in certain genres, or to identify how complete or otherwise the list might be, or how notable the songs are.". Every day hundreds of new songs are written.  And 3/4 is not new, I have songs going back centuries written in 3/4.  This article is necessarily and inherently incomplete, and unquantifiably incomplete at that. - Just zis Guy, you know? 17:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If it's that complicated, then obviously what we need is a comprehensive article on triple meter, which we do have though it needs to be expanded is currently a redirect to a very generic article on meter, and a number of lists broken out from this one with more quantifiable criteria, to help users analyze the complicated concept. In which case, I would still vote keep, and then afterwards we could all work out how to deal with the data left, because it will take some effort, as providing a service to users always does. Jacqui ★ 18:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That is very much what I think, the crucial point being quantifiable criteria. Examples of rock songs in triple metre, with some background, is good.  Without closely defined criteria all we have is a complately arbitrary collection of songs. - Just zis Guy, you know? 13:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, cool. So we actually agree on something. I guess the part we disagree on is the process of actually supplementing the triple meter concept. I personally don't think this list needs to be deleted to do that, though I think we agree we may have to change it substantially -- rename it, change criteria, etc. Because wiki isn't paper, we don't have to burninate this one before making a new one. We can make a new one out of this one. Jacqui  ★ 14:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think we always did agree fundamentally. And as to whether the solution is to scrap this page and create another one, or change this page in outline and concept then redirect it to a new name which more accurately reflects that new (and encyclopaedic) purpose - well, perhaps that is a difference which makes no difference :-) As soon as new content is added to the page to reflect the changed direction which, as far as I can tell, most of us seem to agree is worth having, I will change my vote.  Since the songs listed are in genres with which I am largely unfamiliar, being more interested in opera, madrigals and oratorios, I cannot myself really contribute in that respect. I guess I'm always goign to have some problems with the kinds of things that get into Wiki, especially when fans pad out articles on bands with a fan base in the dozens to be longer than articles on the likes of Bryn Terfel, but there you go.  It is the modern way, as documented by the numerous "x best y of all time" lists which, if voted by the publis, are always dominated by this year's entries. - Just zis Guy, you know? 15:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete as per Just zis Guy, you know? - TheMadBaron 09:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow. I was just making a list that is of interest to me and other musicians (as opposed to music fans...big difference...sorry if that seems snotty) and I've definitely sparked a debate about a larger issue.  Articles don't have to be interesting to everyone to be deemed non-listcruft.  I mean, I couldn't personally  give a shit about a list of amino acids, microbials, etc., but I'm really glad that someone people do care.  By the way, I think some people are voting to delete here based simply on the fact that it gives them an excuse to use a cool new nonce word.  Yeah, listcruft, cool.  Guys..don't knock what you don't understand.  If 3/4 or 6/8 (or any signature but common, really) makes a splash in the music market, it's out of the ordinary.  An article on my theory would be original research, but a list is verifiable (3/4 is not a theory) AND maintainable.  I'm glkad that someone polices new article creation, but some of you are going overboard, as others have pointed out.70.226.157.116 17:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * "Don't knock what you don't understand?" How patronising is that? 3/4 time is not a brand which can "make a splash" on the music "market", it's a musical metre which has been around for at least 350 years.  And yes,I am a musician and have spent may hundreds of hours around other, much better musicians.  So, if the purpose of your article is to document a resurgence of interest in triple metre in a particular genre, then do just that. If it's to say why triple metre is interesting, cool. If (as at present) it's just a list of the songs you could think of at the time which are in 3/4, then I urge you to contribute to my "list of things on the second shelf up at Waitrose, Caversham".  - Just zis Guy, you know? 17:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It sounds patronizing Just zis Guy, you know?, because I figured if I can't make you see that you're over-policing based on your lack of interest in a given topic, then I might as well try to make you think that you don't understand the significance of the topic, which I still believe.  Guess that didn't work because you're an award-winning musician.  And why are you so hung up on 3/4 being old?  I know that, I think we all do.  You seem to not read what others have written on this page or choose not to respond because you're savoring the thought of deleting something.  I mean, we're all slightly nerdy for being wikipedians, man, but get over yourself.  And I saw nothing on WP:ISNOT that applies to this list.  I think you're stretching the rules to facilitate your deletion-happy view of what wiki should be.  I'll be adding to this list and hopefully other people will too.  Sorry if this is too personal for an afd discussion, but you've taken this crusade upon yourself and I find it hard to believe that you have any time to practice your music if you're always trying to delete something on wiki.70.226.157.116 21:00, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, then, you should make some effort to understand my objections rather than positng further patronising comments. Did I say I was not interested in songs in triple metre?  No.  Actually I am.  I am a singer, I am interested in songs.  I am interested in music of all kinds, and as a long-time Brubeck fan I am particularly interested in music in unusual time signatures.  What I object to is a list which makes no attempt to set out why it should be any more interesting than the list of things on the second shelf up at Waitrose.  An article on triple metre, noting why it is unusual in certain genres and pointing out notable examples, would be interesting.  I'm not going to write that because I have little knowledge of songs written since about 1940, and insufficient knowledge of the various current genres to make an informed comment.  I might well contribute to such an article in the areas about which I do have knowledge.  But this is just a list of songs in an arbitrary metre which makes no attempt to establish why such a list might be of any interest or relevance.  If it aims to be a complete list of all songs written in 3/4 since a given date, it is pointless as it will always be both incomplete and out of date.  If it's a list of notable songs in that time, in some arbitrary genres, what defines the genres which are included or not included?  Who is going to look for or read this article, and with what purpose in mind?  WP:ISNOT an indiscriminate collection of information.  And I am not "deletion happy", I have voted keep on several AfD votes.  I have also voted delete on an article I contributed myself!  I really cannot see that a list of some of the songs in a given metre, which fails to establish why being in that metre is itself notable, and which makes no retence to completeness, is a useful addition to Wikipedia.  Far better to document why 3/4 is unusual, and give a list of interesting or notable examples.  That would be encyclopaedic. - Just zis Guy, you know? 13:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete Unmaintainable, unencyclopedic. Xoloz 17:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * A quick perusal of the List of lists pages shows many lists that make no attempt at completeness i.e. Czech writers, businesses, books- books for crying out loud! Would you say that since the list of books is always  going to be incomplete that you might as well not have it at all?  I hope not.  This page here can be tagged with a "this list is incomplete, please add to it, etc" disclaimer that I see all over wiki.  And there is nothing about this list that makes it inherently arbitrary.  It willl be as inclusive or specific as users care to make it. I don't think that 'WP:ISNOT an indiscriminate collection of information' applies here.  The criteria for inclusion (triple meter) might potentially (hopefully) lead to a huge number songs eventually being included, but it is not arbitrary.  Now, if someone proposed making a list of songs in common time, I would be first in line to say that it was a horrible idea.  But 3/4 and 6/8 combined make up only a drop in the ocean of common time.  Being a musician Just zis Guy, you know?, I hope you can understand that it might be nice for a fledgling musician to have a list with a wide variety of songs to choose from in order to master a fairly common, yet often much overlooked time signature.  Please go to List of lists and start counting the number of lists (and all the thousands of hours of work that those lists represent) you would have to delete from wiki if you held them all to the same criteria that you're trying to hold this list to.144.92.184.55 00:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Serious discussion of this is underway. Many man-hours worth of unencyclopedic content may go.  If you know any list you think unencyclopedic, nominate it at AfD.  We will not keep unencyclopedic content under the argument that there is other unencyclopedic we have removed yet. Xoloz 03:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, good question "Would you say that since the list of books is always going to be incomplete that you might as well not have it at all?".  Answer: yes.  That list is even more unencyclopaedic than this one.  The number of books is as close to infinite as makes no difference, so the list here is actually the list of books whichi people who could be bothered to update the page, have heard of and can be bothered to add to the list.  Utterly pointless, unencyclopaedic and POV in that its selection criteria are completely arbitrary.  I'm with Xoloz, these lists can go on user pages or some other place. Along with all the fancruft :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? 09:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep! I have found this page very useful. It could be improved, but heck that's what's a Wiki is for. I've Googled for ages and found nothing as comprehensive. Since the distinction between 6/8 and 3/4 is rather subjective it makes sense to keep the 'triple meter' grouping but thbe page would be more useful if it at least attempted to tag songs to one or the other (or 12/8, another triple metre, for that matter, used in the massive hit Everybody Hurts by REM). So I've added that :-) SNG
 * I am pretty certain that 12/8 is not triple metre,it's a compound double, like 6/8. The score for Everybody Hurts starts with a two-in-a-bar bass (http://www.musicnotes.com/sheetmusic/mtd.asp?ppn=mn0047368, requires free plugin), which also indicates a compound double metre.  Any musicologists here? - Just zis Guy, you know? 11:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Triple metre article
I have created a stub article on triple metre. - Just zis Guy, you know? 11:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Someone has now linked this article from triple metre - which rather misses the point. The problem with this article is that it makes no attempt to be encyclopaedic (for example, it does not state its inclusion criteria).  I created triple metre as a place where the fact of it being unusual could be discussed, and as a way of avoiding this unencyclopaedic list.  Gaaah! - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 08:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This list now includes at least one example from every year between 1990 and the present and at least five people have contributed and I hope many more will start. I tagged this article with the dynamic list disclaimer, so now EVERYONE will know that it isn't complete, as if anyone with enough interest to read it wouldn't know that already. It DOES state its inclusion criteria (Songs in triple meter!) but Just zis Guy, you know? claims over and over again that it doesn't.  The criteria could lead to a long list, but that doesn't mean that there are no criteria (and excessive length is a 'problem' easily dealt with).  And if by unencyclopedic you mean it wouldn't be found in a paper dictionary then, so what.  Go find Modest Mouse, Capitol Records, Seinfeld, Rock, Paper, Scissors, or Honda in a paper dictionary.  I think these are all things worthy of inclusion, but you feel that the space limitations (not to mention hard editorial choices conderning space vs. inclusiveness) of a paper encyclopedia should apply to an electronic one.  The inclusiveness is what most wikis love and you don't get it.  I think this is a major flaw in your view of wiki.  I know you're gonna have some super-smart reply with this, but I don't care...I'm done butting heads with you.  It was fun for a while...no, it was fun for YOU...I was just trying to save a worthwhile list from being erased.  I'll let wiki voters look at the article, see if they think it has merit, and decide from there.  Ta Ta144.92.184.70 01:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The list is completely arbitrary. The wider the timescale you assign, the more incomplete and unencyclopaedic it becomes!  We've already had one erroneously attributed (12/8 is comopund double metre not triple).  I don't see any point to it. Sorry, but that's just how it is. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 10:17, 5 November 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.