Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs by name (0th nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Summary[edit]

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)