Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs by name (0th 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 - kept

List of songs by name

(and its various subpages). IMHO, its a rather silly conceit that these could ever be even reasonably complete, let alone exhaustive (and thus useful). At the moment, its a frankly perverse selection, comprised mainly of second and third tear heavy metal bands (very little jazz, blues, opera, comic song, vaudeville, or anything predating 1961; quite a lot of Blue Cheer and Nazareth (band)). Many (most) of the album links end up going somewhere other than intended. (I found it because I was working on The Catch, which is apparently a mid-80s Nazareth album) . May find a home at MusicWiki. Oh, and the only pages that link to it are other list pages. GWO 07:05, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Seems useful to me. If it lacks genres and has misdirected links, that is only because more links need to be added and cleaned up. I myself try to add any songs that I create articles on to the list. Keep. --Slowking Man 07:30, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • I'd be interested to know what use you find in it. GWO
• I have contributed entries and it is a useful resource for people seeking information on songs ie group, year, album for further info. Keep.Capitalistroadster 08:01, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. It is exactly what it says, a list of songs. Not harmful in any way. Wyllium 10:53, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)
  • So, you'd have no problem with List of everyone who has ever lived. And I'd suggest it is harmful -- such a necessarily arbitrary and incomplete list looks utterly amateurish. I nominated it here because, as a long time wikipedian, I'm active embarassed by it. If I were a new user, I'd roll my eyes and go elsewhere. -- GWO
    • How is a list of songs not encyclopedic? Should I email Gracenote and Allmusic to tell them that what they're doing is pointless and that they should just give up? Being incomplete isn't a criterium for deletion. That's what the incomplete-tags are for. Wyllium 11:25, 2004 Oct 1 (UTC)
      • Show me Allmusic's "list of songs" page, and I'll email them personally to tell them they're wasting their time. Except they don't have one, do they? They store songs collected as albums and implement a search functionality. As to gracenote... do you need to be explicitly told that Wikipedia is NOT the cddb? GWO 11:39, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • So...information is only useful if it's in database format? That's your point? A list of songs is encyclopedic and useful. Being "incomplete" is not an argument for deletion, that would mean 90% of the lists has to go, and a good portion of the rest of the articles. Wyllium 12:10, 2004 Oct 1 (UTC)
          • No. Incompleteness is not an argument for deletion. The impossibility of ever making this list useful is the argument for deletion, as I initially wrote. Perhaps you'd like to read it. Many people have declared this already "useful", no one has yet given an example in which they used it. Wikipedia is not the cddb. This page would be ok if the same notability criteria applied to entries as one would to encyclopedia. How is a list of songs not encyclopedic? Because encyclopedia contain articles about notable things, and indices to those articles. That's what an encyclopedia is. This is merely a Catalogue, and an astonishingly poor one at that. (Look up Moondance in this "useful" list. There's Nazareth, but no mention of Van Morrison. Pitiful. Embarrassing. Amateurish.). -- GWO 13:51, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
            • "Look up Moondance in this "useful" list. There's Nazareth, but no mention of Van Morrison. Pitiful. Embarrassing. Amateurish.)." And because of that the list should be deleted? If you are unhappy about Moondance by Van Morrison not being included, the simple solution is for you to add songs that you think should be included, including Moondance. Problem solved. Wikipedia is a constantly evolving encyclopedia with unpaid contributors. Of course there are always going to be articles that are unfinished and need adding to. We are not superhumans with psychic abilities. All lists are essentially catalogues, so if you are against catalogues then all the lists should be deleted and not just this one. Encyclopedias dont always contain notable things either. Encyclopedias by definition of its name is meant to cover a whole range of knowledge. Iam 00:55, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment. Is list of people by name silly too, then? --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 22:25, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)
      • 'Answer : No, because thats a list of notable people for whom we have, or hope to eventually have, an article. I've no problem with a list that will eventually become an index to articles. This is not such a list. GWO
• Delete. Lists always have a problem like this, and this list is worse than most. Oy. --Improv 13:31, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete unworkable, amateurish, agree with GWO. Wolfman 15:26, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:18, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Possibly subdivide into genres, but lists like this can be useful. Darksun 17:36, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • The debate isn't over lists like this. It's about this one. Please explain who something so inherently, intrinsically and unrepairably incomplete can be useful. GWO 18:04, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Because, someone might want to find a song who's name they can't remember, the artist of a song, or whatever. It may not provider the answer, but it might, and not being complete isn't grounds for deletion. Wikipedia itself will probably never be complete. Our knowledge of the universe will never be complete - should I go on? :P Darksun 21:04, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. The Recycling Troll 20:58, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a useful list. If anyone is interested in a specific song, they'll just search for the title; they won't go to a "list of songs by title" and scan down until they find it. — Gwalla | Talk 21:12, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not useful, because either it is so incomplete as to be useless, or it is so overcrowded as to be useless -- Chris 73 Talk 00:54, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not useful. -- Jmabel 03:04, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Dsmdgold 04:23, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. If this list goes than other lists should go. I have contributed to it and find it most useful. The lack of genres will eventually be answered. Iam 04:43, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete User:MartinSpamer
• Keep. Don't kill navigational aids unless there's a better alternative. In this case, there are no other good alternatives:
  1. Categories aren't an option because we don't have individual articles about every single song.
  2. Having individual articles about each song is against our notability policy.
  3. Juggling several hundred thousand redirects and disambig pages would be even worse.
  4. Having no indexing scheme at all is simply unencyclopedic.

  Keep the list: it's incomplete for now, and it will become huge in the future, but it's the simplest solution. • Benc • 06:54, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Really. I've many music encyclopedias. Do you know how many have indices that cover every song they mention? Not a single one. GWO 09:58, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • My Guinness Book Of British Hit Singles And Albums (17th Edition) has a complete index of every song it contains. Kinitawowi 00:41, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Google is a better alternative. If you're searching for something, use a search engine. -- GWO
  • No. Search engines are by far the simplest solution. Or alt.music.lyrics. This list currently unusably incomplete. When (if) it expands to its lofty goals, it will merely be completely unusable. -- GWO
  • Please don't make the mistake of comparing Wikipedia to other (lesser) encyclopedias or search engines. We're neither. Search engines may be the simplest solution for you, but as you are neither contributing to nor using the index, why do you care? Is it harming anything? I would find the Wikipedia list useful, as would others. Usefulness is subjective and is never a valid reason to delete. Also, I haven't yet seen a convincing reason as to why the list will be "completely unusable". It won't; the list is already split up into dozens of subpages. Even when fully populated, it will still be usable. • Benc • 04:53, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Lists like this are useful ways of organising information. If you think a search engine can do the job, you might consider whether that's practical when you send email by handing a floppy disk to a motorcyclist who carries it to the nearest big town for you - that's how a set of villages in India are doing email. Or if you're the school in South Africa which wanted an offline copy because internet connectsions are too expensive. We aren't producing something solely for the web. Jamesday 17:12, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Strong delete. There would be no limit to the size of this list. If you're going to have an article like this, why not have articles like List of all people in New York City by name? --Lowellian 22:04, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I see one statement against such as: "Having individual articles about each song is against our notability policy.". Of course it is. If you read the guidelines for the list you would note that links to songs are only encouraged if the article for the song exists. So why is that ever mentioned when the list rules agree with policy? You are arguing something that the list is already in line with. Iam 00:19, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Because those guidelines were written by the people who wrote the article, not by any form as sensible consensus. You can't keep an article from deletion simply by inventing some spurious policy to justify its existance and including it in the preamble. It's not a policy in any meaningful sense. By that logic, if I were edit that "policy" to a policy requiring notability and delete the swathes of unambiguously non-notable songs (i.e. about 99.9% of the present content) GWO
    • And so what? If the guidelines are in line with policy there is no problem. You seem to be stirring up an argument for the sake of an argument. The fact that not every song has a link to an article is proof that the guidelines are in fact adhered to be people adding songs to the list. Therefore Wiki policy has been adhered to whether its consensus or not. Iam 01:26, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
      • About the whole issue of consensus - just because someone (eg. GWO) did not contribute to the list when it was started does not mean that the list or it's policy is wrong and should be scrapped. That analogy is the same as George W. Bush saying that because he was not part of the consensus process for the Treaty of Paris in 1783, that the treaty is wrong or should be scrapped. Iam 23:41, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
• Definitely keep, as long as it's limited to songs from bands, artists and/or albums that already have WP entries. Obviously not every song is getting its own article. -Sean Curtin 01:06, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, that's a delete for the article in its present form. I've no problem with reconstituting in the form you recommend. Where would one go to reach a consensus on a policy requiring notability?
• Keep. Nothing stopping blues, jazz, opera fans from populating these lists. Songs by default are not to be linked unless someone is willing to write an article for them. Most songs don't deserve articles. These lists are not promoting that articles about the songs need to be written. RedWolf 07:16, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • "A List of songs that do not deserve encyclopedia articles" -- does that really deserve to be an encyclopedia article? -- GWO
    • No, whatever gave you the idea I would support such an article? RedWolf 19:41, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • I still strongly recommend Keep but one possible compromise is move the list to Wikipedia namespace and only have a list of notable songs in the article namespace. However, "notable" by what standards? Still a can of worms. RedWolf 19:41, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)
• Strong delete This can never be completed. Ever. This single entry could eventually compare to a large portion of the entirety of Wiki. I suggest a "list of important songs, by name/genre". ClockworkTroll 15:49, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree. A list that functions like List of people by name. That's a sensible list, with sensible notability requirements. GWO
• Strong Delete. This is an impossibly large task and too long to be of any use to anyone. Sarge Baldy 19:48, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Lists are good! jni 11:38, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Doomed to incompleteness, not useful. —tregoweth 04:14, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, and use/improve the category system instead. Human-maintained lists like these are a PITA and not worth the trouble. ~leif ☺ _HELO 07:16, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Article scope

It seems to be that many of the keeps and deletes above would be OK with a list requiring notability, like List of people by name. Can I have a quick show of hands to see who agrees/disagrees with this change of policy?

• Aye - It seems a fair change in policy. ClockworkTroll 20:03, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Nay - ALmost everything listed there is by someone notable enough for an article, restricting it further would essentially turn it into a list of "Western Mainstream Songs by Name". Sarge Baldy 22:21, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm a huge fan of independent music, personally. I know I would have one or two songs that are not mainstream, but are still notable for their influence on others, or for their impact on the indy scene. Of course, I can only speak for myself, but its a start. ClockworkTroll 05:58, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Aye, I'll buy that. That could make this a good place to find something like List of songs with their own articles or some such. Kinitawowi 00:41, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Don't need a list when we already have Category:Songs. RedWolf 06:03, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
• Aye, though deciding how notable is notable enough is ultimately the perogative of the article's editors. • Benc • 04:58, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Nay - By whose measure do you define "notable"? Songs vary like people's tastes. Unlike important people in history, how do you account for an editor's taste in music? The point I'm trying to make is once the list gets pruned to "notable" a lot of people will protest if they don't see their favourite song on the list, and whose to stop people sneaking their own songs to the list anyway? A song police force? Someone who has their own view of "notable"? I see such a form of censorship as going against the spirit of Wikipedia and open to abuse. However, I don't think creating a list purley of songs with articles only is good either. Why? Beacuse it will encourage fans to start writing articles for each of their band's songs and adding it to the list, which goes aginst Wiki policy in the first place, so the problem goes back full circle. Iam 01:41, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Well the same could be said of a every article in wiki. I've no problem with people sneaking their favourite borderline cases on. The grey area is grey, and we can be inclusive about it. But most of the songs on this list are unambiguously non-notable. It's the result of a data dump of albums en masse. The number of pop albums for which every track is notable is pretty small, and I can guarantee you that none of them are by Blue Cheer. GWO
• "Notability" is impossible to determine on a case-by-case basis for a list of songs. list of webcomics only lists webcomics that already have WP articles; list of songs should only list songs where the artist(s) or album(s) in question already have articles, or where disambiguation for the song title might be necessary. As an example, list of songs by name: 0 - 9 has four entries that fail to meet said criteria. -Sean Curtin 04:47, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, "Notability" is a nebulous concept (a quick scan of VfD will tell you that), but its one we have for every other article on wikipedia. It'd be odd to make this list the exception. GWO
• Nay. If it's notable enough to be on a list, write an article for it and it will show up in the category system. ~leif ☺ _HELO 07:19, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• This should become, like list of albums and list of movies, a list of links to songs which already have articles. Tuf-Kat 08:34, Oct 5, 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.

Summary

From the first section: keeps and deletes in roughly equal numbers. No consensus.

From the second section : Only two supports for its present form, SargeBaldy and Iam. The remaining people suggest only notable/articled songs (in the same way the 'pedia contains only notable people) or no index at all.

I conclude, arbitrarily, that the consensus is that the inclusivity of this list is too great, and that the article should be edited to be more in line with List of people by name, list of albums and list of movies (i.e. only list songs for which an article exists or might be considered desirable). Anyone disagree that this is the consensus? --- GWO 06:23, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• It's certainly the consensus, but unfortunately that consensus brings us full circle;

only list songs for which an article exists or 'might be considered desirable'

is precisely the problem we're trying to avoid - who's to decide what might be considered desirable? Kinitawowi 08:59, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

• While a problem in principle, this is rarely a problem in practice. List of people by name has this criterion already, and seems to function. No one keeps adding their family members, and there aren't endless debates as to whether Xanothopoulos, Callistus (patriarch of Constantinople) should be on the list, despite the fact he doesn't (yet) have an article. As I seem to keep repeating, the entire wikipedia is based on notability criteria that are impossible to define (or rather every contributors distinct ideas of notability). Yet it seems to work just fine. Let us be bold in updating pages, and if it becomes a revert fest / flame war we can always change policy back. -- GWO

  Historical Note: Everyone has different ideas of notability. When I added the first reference to Sex Pistols to wikipedia, back in the day, Larry Sanger (no less) removed it telling me "No one cares about the Sex Pistols." -- GWO

  • You know Larry Sanger may have had a point at the time. Not so long ago there was a discussion to remove music related articles from Wikipedia all together. If it gets down to the crunch on what is "notable" and what isn't for songs, I'd sooner delete all music articles rather than engage in endless arguments over what criteria is used for notability. You said earlier you were left out of the concensus process for the list creation (see my earlier reply), well what concensus do you have for what defines notable? Record sales? Sheet music sales? Music awards? Number of times played on radio? I haven't seen anything which talks about this in depth. Iam 23:41, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • No sooner than you "culled" the 0-9 song list than someone added a song and article by Tommy Tutone called "867-5309", whichI have never heard before. This is precisely the problem I was alluding to earlier over what is "notable" and what isn't. Iam 00:54, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
      • Hey. I've never heard of the Behistun Inscription, or Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius or Gough Whitlam, but I'm not stupid enough to suggest that this brings their notability into question. -- GWO
        • Musical taste is a matter of opinion.. What criteria are you using to define notable for songs? Iam 23:41, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
          • Arbitrary ones. The same ones we're using to define notability for historical figures, aeroplane designs, computer languages, species of tree and Australian politicians. GWO
            • Songs are different though from science and history. They are an artform. It's like comparing the Mona Lisa against a Picasso. Which one is better? Depends on the person. Iam 23:30, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
              • Which would be a really good point if anyone had suggested that the criterion should be "quality", and we were forcing ourselves to make value judgements like "is `Strange Fruit' better than `Teenage Kicks'". But no one has suggested that, because its a completely moronic idea. GWO
                • Yet when songs are "culled" from a list, a value judgement has to be made on what constitutes "notable". Personally, if push comes to shove, I'd sooner delete the entire lists and just create ones which are based on record sales, chart positions etc. At least it can be quantified and there would be no arguments with the facts, rather than relying on a persons musical taste or lack thereof. Iam 02:03, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
                  • You continue to miss the point. I'm not culling those lists according to taste, but according to knowledge. As to deleting the lists ... well that was how we got here, but the consensus said the lists stay, so we'll make the best of this bad job. GWO
                    • Define "knowledge" in regard to songs. As I pointed out in earlier posts you haven't stated by what criteria you are judging these songs on. Iam 23:47, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
• Since we last debated this issue a few months ago, a number of users have added songs to the list which could be classed as non-notable. I really think that if the list is going to remain "unpoliced" in regard to the new change of policy then the list itself should be deleted. Having contributed greatly to the list in the past few months I now feel that it was a mistake to have done so. I think List of songs by name should be deleted altogether and will not oppose it being done. There are a number of other song lists too that probably need to go as well but that's not up for me to decide. They serve no useful purpose except act as vanity mirrors for one-eyed fans of bands. I really believe wikipedia should stick to being an encyclopaedia rather than a cache of self-serving lists that dont explain anything. Iam 03:51, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)