Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs whose title does not appear in the lyrics (0th nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 - kept

List of songs whose title does not appear in the lyrics

[edit]

Utterly ridiculous list, just as incompletable as List of songs and far less useful to anyone. Sarge Baldy 22:04, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. Gazpacho 22:11, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I believe this has survived VfD once already - David Gerard 22:22, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • It seems you're correct, and I'd straight up withdraw the nomination except that I see that vote was a good 6 months ago and only by a vote of 2-1. That's enough for me to warrant a retrial. Sarge Baldy 22:29, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The uselessness of this is akin to a list of movies that don't have title lines. Ian Pugh 22:48, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Change to Keep, after deliberation and reading other votes. I still don't really agree with the usefulness of the article, but I think it might be a nice way to draw in new users ("Oh, I know a song that's not on here," and so forth). Ian Pugh 00:55, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, most definitely. It's been through VfD before, as David Gerard pointed out (although admittedly because it was listed by a moron who proposed the deletion of 107 articles...); plus, it's obviously of interest to someone given that it's got a 28 section discussion page and has been pretty consistently updated for a good eighteen months. Kinitawowi 23:10, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep I happened to stumble across this earlier and found it useful... Jelly441 23:28, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I find the "list of songs" articles to be some of the best maintained on wikipedia. - RedWordSmith 23:39, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Mikkalai 23:53, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Another point I should bring up is just how objective the subject matter is, excluding both instrumentals and certain songs from the list because their title is "implied" somehow within the song. Therefore the page does not even accurately correspond to its title. Sarge Baldy 00:14, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • There are always disputes as to what qualifies to go on any page. Propose a renaming to List of songs which have no allusions to their titles or some such, but I don't see that there's a need to VfD it because of that issue. Furthermore, I have to ask; would you have brought up this point if the debate wasn't 4 1/2 - 3 against (at time of typing)? Kinitawowi 00:31, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
      • Clearly not. I didn't try much for an argument up top because I didn't expect much resistance, considering the lack of support for List of songs. And no, that's hardly my primary issue with the article, but I felt it was worth mentioning anyway. Sarge Baldy 00:45, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, once again. How is it possible that this article has more keep votes than List of songs ? Wyllium 00:27, 2004 Oct 3 (UTC)
  • Keep; I for one have wanted a list of these for years. Andrew Levine 02:41, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Nothing of note User:MartinSpamer
  • Keep. interesting. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 06:00, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Again, usefulness is subjective and is never a valid reason to delete. • Benc • 08:18, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • It's not a lack of usefulness that annoys me so much as that probably the majority of songs don't list their title amongst the lyrics and therefore there is very little of note about the titles listed here. I don't understand the point of a list that hardly weeds out much anything that would appear in a much larger list. I know (literally) thousands of songs I could include here, and I find little special about the concept behind it. Plus the idea that songs whose name in some editors mind relate enough to the music behind the song (without the lyrics remotely resembling them, in most cases) are excluded from the list, without even giving any explanation for the decision. Would someone care to explain how exactly Unchained Melody or Bohemian Rhapsody can be "derived" from the music accompaniment of the song? Does the title Sympathy for the Devil not sum up properly the point of the song behind it? Aren't all songs intended to be represented by their titles? Could someone at least attempt to explain to me why a song whose title does not appear in the lyrics should not be listed under a list of song whose title does not appear in the lyrics because according to someone the general feel of the song represents the title? Sarge Baldy 11:34, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • I think you greatly misunderstand the rule that prevents Bohemian Rhapsody from being on the list. It's not simply about the title vaguely representing the song, which, as you say, would be a pretty empty restriction. Theme From Flood is the theme from Flood. Sympathy for the Devil is not itself sympathy for the devil — it's a song expressing sympathy for the devil. This rule has nothing to do with the music being "derivable" from the title. Factitious 20:19, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Its sheer length shows that it is not a list of notable things. Jongarrettuk 15:44, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep (interesting) Sietse 17:30, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - how many times is it for this page? This is at least the third. Smerdis of Tlön 18:20, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - is this information notable? How about a "list of songs that employ the zanzithophone", or a list of "cops named Albert"? Uselessness of information is a good reason for deletion, if the information is useless enough: that's why we delete vanity pages and listings of high schools. ClockworkTroll 20:11, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Actually, I'd be interested in seeing a list of songs that employ the zanzithophone, though I'm not qualified to create one. Factitious 23:27, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • Heh - well, Neutral Milk Hotel uses one in their album In the Aeroplane over the Sea - very important in the indy music scene. That's the only one I know off hand. ClockworkTroll 00:28, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, assuming it is in fact a VfD relisting. Pages should only be relisted on VfD under unusual circumstances. There should either have been a) a clear change in Wikipedia policy, or good reason to believe there's been a change in the general views of the Wikipedian community; or b) an obvious change in the article for the worse; or c) fresh evidence of some kind of extraordinary irregularity in the original VfD discussion, vote, or disposition. None of these seems to apply to this page. It seems to have much the same sort of content as it did a year ago, and seems to be very actively maintained and edited. The editors appear to have evolved clear editorial principles. The page looks stupid to me, but that's irrelevant. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:21, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Dpbsmith: That's very well-written and cogent argument. Nice work. ClockworkTroll 20:33, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. Not at all encyclopedic. I wholeheartedly disagree with Dpbsmith. Pages should be relisted on VfD provided a) Sufficient time has passed, b) Someone feels that it is worth removing, and c) There is reason to think that the verdict may be different. The community should be free to reconsider decisions it made in the past. Beyond my reply to Dpbsmith, my delete vote is based on the fact that it's not notable and not encyclopedic. --Improv 21:24, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • No, no and no. Define "sufficient time", someone thought it was worth removing last time and got voted down, and what's the reason for thinking there would be a different verdict? Kinitawowi 08:08, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
        • Yes, yes, and yes :) (sorry, too funny not to poke fun). Sufficient time isn't well defined yet -- I'd think about 2 months should be enough. There may be many reasons to think the verdict may change -- the population of wikipedia changes over time, and there were very few votes last time, which suggests the decision isn't as stable as it might have been, which is why I think it met my third criterion. Votes are not binding forever on Wikipedians. --Improv 14:06, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
          • Oh good, we can have this conversation all over again a month or two from now. — Bill 16:24, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I actually agree with Dpbsmith for the most part; however, as it has been said, it was tossed in with so many other lists only 2 votes past the nomination were cast, which is hardly enough to determine where users of Wikipedia in general want the article to remain. Sarge Baldy 23:24, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
      • It was obviously enough at the time; why isn't it now? Kinitawowi 08:08, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, interesting reference. -Sean Curtin 23:03, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. [[User:Davodd|DAVODD «TALK»]] 00:13, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. along with list of songs.
  • Keep. —tregoweth 15:42, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I couldn't care less about popular songs, but this might be of interest to sociologists, linguists and certain kinds of mathematicians. — Bill 23:01, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • How do you figure, Bill? What kinds of mathematicics describe the behavior of songs whose title does not appear in their lyrics? ClockworkTroll 04:11, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Self-referentiality and its reverse, so to speak, pop up in all kinds of mathematical contexts: set theory, statistics, chaos theory, network theory, etc. I admit this particular item is a bit of a long shot in all that, but it could be useful beyond the limited world of people curious about song title trivia. — Bill 16:20, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • Good response, Bill - I will have to learn more about those subjects before I can agree or disagree, though. Also, in reading my last comment I realize I may come off somewhat rude. Although you gave no indication of having been offended, I feel I owe you an apology anyway. Rudeness was not my intent at all. ClockworkTroll 17:54, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. One of the reasons that make Wikipedia so great is unusual lists like this. [[User:Norm|Norm]] 23:10, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, I've used this list a few times, and just browsed it. Its certainly an interesting idea. Whats the big issue with keeping stuff these days? —siroχo 04:59, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • Considering the vast majority of songs I know of that don't include the title in the lyrics, I find it an extremely strange thing to list separately from List of songs by name. Sarge Baldy 05:18, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
      • Really? I tried to think of some because I wanted to test the usefulness and completeness of the list. After sleeping on it I could only come up with two: "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" and "The 59th Street Bridge Song." Then I checked and found that the list excludes "Titles that are descriptive of the song and therefore not expected to appear in the lyric," and even used "The 59th Street Bridge Song" as an example. I'm astonished they were able to find so many. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:03, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • Yep, I find it rather unusual within my music to find the title within the lyrics, although I do realize with most popular radio tunes the opposite is the general rule. Sarge Baldy 00:28, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
          • You should consider adding some of those songs to the list, then. Factitious 20:19, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. As much as this list isn't useful, it provides useless trivia, which some people like. --Beau99 05:26, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Ropers 22:50, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This page has been of use to me, and I've spent some time

contributing to it. Factitious 23:25, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep or BJAODN. Rickyrab 00:31, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: It could indeed be a nice long list. Heck, it could be 85% of the titles on AMG. That makes it kind of utterly useless. Geogre 02:27, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I just found this vote because I figured that Wikipedia would have a good list of songs that have bizarre names, and I was right. Don't make me wrong. Perhaps it could use some sort of redefinition to match the editorial standards, but a list of songs like "Baba O'riley" and "Subterranean Homesick Blues" is an interesting resource that many would use. 134.173.57.9 04:56, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's interesting. Decrypt3 18:22, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a Wikipedia classic. True, if an anon created it today it would be speedied, but it's too big to stop it now. JFW | T@lk 19:14, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a perfect waste of time that occupies minds that would otherwise be bent on mischief. Wetman 04:01, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep for something similar to the reason Wetman stated. People enjoy it, and I think that newer Wikipedia writers can get practice on their Wiki skills by playing with it--as well as practice in Wiki-negotiation, editing without flaming. This might not be The Grand Purpose Of Wikipedia, but I think the page doesn't pose any problems to Wikipedia as a whole. Thirdreel 21:42, 13 Oct 2004 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_songs_whose_title_does_not_appear_in_the_lyrics_(0th_nomination)&oldid=1138024763"