Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of lists of songs (second 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 was delete. Proto::type 12:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of lists of songs (second nomination)[edit]

Note: This article has had a previous AfD discussion, which can be found here.

Strong Keep - This article is very useful, and there should be no reason for it's deletion - ZEROpumpkins 07:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aargh... Just read my replies to everyone else saying "It's useful!" -Amarkov ^babble 14:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - This is the best article on Wikipedia and I use it constantly to find music. This is exactly the type of content Wikipedia was made for, and it's content that cannot be found anywhere else.

Is there a rule that someone with this argument must appear in every AfD for a list? It doesn't matter if it can be found elsewhere, nor does it matter if you think it's the best. And you're going to have to support your assertion that it's what Wikipedia was made for. Lists two levels removed from actual content seems to me a perfect example of what Wikipedia is NOT for. What's next, List of meta-lists? -Amarkov ^babble 02:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - ongoing struggle to end arbitrary lists.....4.18GB 00:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Im with 4.18 on this. THe lists keep n growing! Chris Kreider 00:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - but first, make sure a category corresponds to each heading and make sure each article in this list has the appropriate category tag. That's the only way to keep a list like this maintainable. The list of articles in a category auto-maintain themselves. =Axlq 00:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (edit conflict) categorize this self-referential and no added value list.-- danntm ^T _C 00:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and put into category space as above.Jcam 01:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its very listcrufty. The only list of lists we need id List of Lists. Tarret 01:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost a joke. Danny Lilithborne 02:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move into category space Z388 03:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just move it to category space? Maybe it should be a sub-category of Category:Categories of lists? -Amarkov ^babble 03:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think s/he means assure that any list here is in Category:Lists of songs.--T. Anthony 04:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. That makes sense, although "move" is an odd wording. -Amarkov ^babble 04:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, listcruft. EVula 05:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This is the greatest article ever. Listcruft is fun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zweifel (talk • contribs)
Keep - useful. --Mikey Mousey 06:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC) User indef blocked as blatant sockpuppet/troll/vandal (all of the three work, really). Cowman109^Talk 21:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - listcruft. it it did exist, it'd be suited better it there was a category called Category: Lists about songs. or something to that affect. --andrewI20^Talk 06:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but "categorify" per Z388 and T. Anthony. --Dhartung | Talk 07:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I performed this categorization; there were about 24 articles that were not in the cat (some others were in a subcat of the cat). --Dhartung | Talk 08:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete or move to "Lists of Listcruft" Elomis 08:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination Imo eng 11:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep per previous AfD. Why is this even relisted? Grue 15:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's part of the neverending war to eliminate all non-exhaustive lists at Wikipedia. (Exhaustive lists being like List of Canadian provinces and territories by population) It's not likely they'll ever succeed at eliminating non-exhaustive lists, but it's important for some to try. Still I'm not certain this particular one is useful so I'm not voting at present.--T. Anthony 15:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a category, no reason to duplicate it as a list. shotwell 17:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this should be categories. Thanks to Dhartung for doing the categorization grunt work.--Isotope23 17:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unmanageable and unwieldy. Most of the lists themselves are unnecessary (for example, List of songs by XXX - I'd go to XXX and expect the songs to be listed in the article.) Agreed with all those who said that non-exhaustive lists should be eliminated, but this is a good place to start. Emeraude 17:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hi they are called categories. Recury 19:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but only if every single one gets categorized. --Lyght 20:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Explain what's the difference between this and the list of mathematics lists, which is not only acceptable but is actually a featured list. I say keep it. 129.98.212.58 21:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, duplicate of a category listing. feydey 21:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if its good enough for a category, its good enough for a list. Frankly "ongoing struggle to end arbitrary lists" sounds like "This is gonna get renominated time and time and time again until we finally get shot of the thing, regardless of the result of however many nominations it takes" Jcuk 23:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Far more useful as category than list. Jay32183 23:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Categories are the way. utcursch | talk 13:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: lists never redundant with categories. AndyJones 17:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: where else would you list those lists? A category couldn't replace it (would alphabetize them on "L" as in "List". Strange AfD. -- User:Docu
- You can change the sort keys and sort them however you like. If you wanted to alphabetize "List of lists of songs" under "songs" you would put [[Category:Music-related lists|Songs]].Recury 22:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Far more complicated than keeping this list. <KF> 02:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Lists of television series episodes hasn't had any problem maintaining a category. Jay32183 02:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See also my comment one line above. <KF> 02:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is what categories are for. In fact, this is what Category:Lists of songs is for. GRBerry 02:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's useful. It's much easier to read than a category page. It makes Wikipedia easier to navigate and thus easier to use. If I have understood this project's objectives correctly, the aim of the Wikipedia project is to gather information that can be found elsewhere, but make it harder to use. Therefore this excellent article should be deleted. --Multivitamin 22:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— Multivitamin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.-Amarkov ^babble 23:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Arbusto 08:24, 5 November 2006 (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.