Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scouting songs

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 was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scouting songs[edit]

Article consists of song lyrics and does not comply with WP:NOT#LYRICS. AfD was suggested on Article Talk page and Scouting Project Page, with no objections JGHowes ^talk - 02:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#LYRICS. JJL (talk) 02:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and discussion on its talk page and in the Scouting Project. I have transwikied the content to ScoutWiki, so it is being kept somewhere and indeed in a more appropriate place. --Bduke (talk) 03:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think the subject itself is notable if an article can be formed with no song lyrics included. matt91486 (talk) 04:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the information is now in a better place. --Dhartung | Talk 05:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bduke, little information will be left anyway if the lyrics were removed.--Lenticel ^(talk) 09:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete; "List of songs associated with Scouting" would be a better way to do this, listing notable songs. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 12:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is capable of improvement as I have just demonstrated by adding an omission which I immediately noticed: Kumbaya. The lyrics are not a decisive issue. As more songs are added, the lyrics can be reduced to the first verse or first line, which would be fair use. Likewise, the title of the article is not decisive as it can be readily renamed. It's the topic which is significant and this seems clearly notable. See Surmountable problem. Here's a long list of potential sources: Google books. And note that the Campfire Songs article is much worse. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it isn't. It's a disambiguation article, and in fairly good shape for one. Uncle G (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.