Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sets of unrelated songs with identical titles

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. - Mailer Diablo 14:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_sets_of_unrelated_songs_with_identical_titles[edit]

This list violates WP:NOT#DIR. This list is not bound together by a single, important topic. There's nothing worthwhile to be said about songs that happen to be named the same that warrants an article of its own, so there's no reason to list these songs on Wikipedia. Bjart 02:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Useless, unmaintainable, ugly, the like. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It was fun contributing to this list, but it's not encyclopedic; there's nothing special about songs which share the same title unless they have Vverifiably caused confusion, and list of songs with such similar titles that they have confused people is just ridiculous. I've also listed this nom on the daily AfD log. Graham87 05:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Amarkov. Grutness...wha? 06:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Graham87. —ShadowHalo 06:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Amarkov. Split Infinity ^(talk) 06:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indiscriminate listcruft. As Graham87 has said, there's really nothing remotely informative or useful about this. -- IslaySolomon | talk 06:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see the need for the article. Somitho 06:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 06:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - listcruft. SkierRMH,08:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Graham87. Danny Lilithborne 12:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not encyclopedic. TSO1D 15:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ludicrously strong delete Consensus has already emerged, so my !vote wasn't exactly "necessary," but this is such unencyclopedic garbage that I had to speak up. -- Kicking222 17:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I've been waiting for someone to nominate this. Punkmorten 19:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deléte It's an interesting list, but really, this isn't enyclopedic. The RSJ 00:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and please can we do something about this growing list-fetishism spreading through Wikipedia? - WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 02:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to a user subpage. Not encyclopedic, but not without interest either.Bjones 18:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nah. That would only take up precious Wikipedia space. But if someone could alert me before this page is deleted, I'd be more than happy to archive this "unencyclopedic garbage" in my website. Thank you in advance. (I love "unencyclopedic garbage". :)) Doberdog 06:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given the current vote tally, you can start anytime. Nothing short of a Christmas miracle will save this article. :)Bjones 13:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You can delete it anytime. I've got the list. Thanks. Doberdog 05:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. DaveApter 21:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It was fun while it lasted though. -MrFizyx 03:39, 21 December 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.