Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about London (2nd 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 keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about London[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This and other pages of "List of songs about (city)" came up at ANI regarding an IP user, but it brought my attention to how poor these are as a standalone topic. While I'm only nominating this one, the same rational would be applicable to others. (Category:Lists of songs about a topic has about 48 city-based and 4 state-based song lists, spot checking most have the same problem).

Most of the songs included are non-notable. Therefore, I expect any not blue-linked to include a source. Nearly all of these don't.
And then we are getting addition of non-notable songs by non-notable artists without any source. There is no attempt to hold to the minimum standards set by WP:V.
The inclusion criteria is paper thin, for a list of songs "about" London. Being simply titled after a location there doesn't make the song about the city - song titles do not necessarily have any direction connection to lyrics. The fact that it says to not include where the city is name checked, yet, just having a named place in the title, doesn't make any logical sense. Granted I do think that there are songs that are truly about London, eg "London Calling", and a narrow list of these songs would make sense, properly sourced, would make sense. But as is, this would fail WP:IINFO.

Realistically, following WP:TRIVIA, these lists should only include songs where a third-party source , or in this case the musical artists themselves have identified that the song is about London. Using the lyrics as a source for this engages in WP:OR, to some extent, though there can be a case made if it is fairly obvious for a notable song, (eg Theme from New York, New York is clearly about New York City, even if we didn't have sources).

While these lists could be trimmed, WP:TNT seems to be better to discourage poor additions.

I know in the case here for London, there was a previous AFD that was "keep" from 2011, but I think we've progressed significantly since to invalidate most of the reasons used then to keep this around. Masem (t) 13:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Songs about London. If retained, the article can be cleaned up to limit entries to blue-linked notable songs, and perhaps some WP:REDLINKed ones that may be notable as per source searching, which could then be properly verified in the article. Then functional red links could be added. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:40, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if the song is blue-linked, there should be at minimum a third-party source that clearly spells out that the song is about London, unless it is patently obvious from the lyrics. A sampling of blue-linked songs show simply name dropping of locations, but nothing about the city. Right now, the way the bulk of this list (and other song lists) are presented, they are "list of songs that happen to mention London or London landmarks", which definitely not an encyclopedic topic. --Masem (t) 16:05, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:CLN and WP:NOTDUP. A large number of those songs do have articles and are yet to be blue-linked. Ajf773 (talk) 22:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- To stress a point, even if you could blue-link them, we need evidence from a third-party that these are songs about London. Not just name dropping placenames. That either needs to be patently obvious from the song or a third-party source. --Masem (t) 23:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:TNT is not policy and AfD is not cleanup. It's easy to find confirmation that this passes WP:LISTN, e.g. London, A Very Peculiar History; NME; Time Out. Andrew D. (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see I am !voting against the trend, but if the article survives I will delete every song EXCEPT blue-linked songs WITH references, that appears to mean I will be deleting every song. Whatever the strength of feeling there is for these damnable lists, there should be references, there should be verifiability, there should be notability, and those that that !vote to keep but do not care to act to help a process of improvement should be ignored as they are serving their own opinions and not Wikipedia. Now if one of them would like to create an article about the history of London in song, with references and examples, I am sure a top quality article could be made, but a list of songs is not and cannot be a quality article. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BLANK, such action would be disruptive. There are many songs listed here which have not been linked yet -- iconic songs like Streets of London and Feed the Birds. It's obvious that they belong here and citations are not normally needed for such well known facts. If Richhoncho has some general objection to lists, they need to address that more generally as lists are currently a well-established feature of Wikipedia. Andrew D. (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is within the guidelines of WP. What's your problem? Ownership? Fix it then I won't be able to carry it out! FWIW, "Streets of London" according to the writer, Ralph McTell, is about Paris, which really illuminates the stupidity of listing songs by title. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, standard list of works by subject, complementary to Category:Songs about London as well as informative regarding culture about one of the most significant cities on the planet. Obviously there are plenty of songs that merit their own articles, but so long as the song's album and/or the recording artist/writer are notable then inclusion can be appropriate (if neither the song nor the album nor the artist have an article, then by all means remove). Per WP:PRESERVE, fixable content should be kept and there is no WP:DEADLINE here, so I agree with Andrew D. that blanking based on nothing more than the current state of content, rather than its potential, would be disruptive and contrary to policy. postdlf (talk) 23:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- If the list were songs about London, there's a valid point. But the inclusion criteria on the list is basically songs that namedrop London or London landmarks which does not make for songs about London. I fully agree that a page that talks of songs about London is culturally significant, but to be culturally significant, a song should be more than name-dropping. And to judge if a song is about London, it better be 100% obvious from the lyrics, or otherwise sourced to a third-party (WP:V is a requirement). Those principles fail throughout, even for songs that have refs don't have good references to support this (Allmusic doesn't support this). With as few references here, I don't see any other solution but TNT to restart the list with a firmer inclusion and sourcing criteria to avoid the mess this list is presently. --Masem (t) 23:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- And I'm not considering that there's the category here. That's fine to have a duplication of cat and list. But the list better follow all sourcing policies, that's not something that can be ignored. --Masem (t) 00:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - The other solution is taking the time to develop it even though that means tolerating content for the timebeing that may not end up in the later version. There is clearly no consensus here for the contra-policy TNT "solution", nor any compelling reason to go that route. In other words, don't panic. postdlf (talk) 00:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - The argument to take time to develop was taken 7 years ago at the last nomination. Exactly how long do we have to support sub-standard articles 'waiting to be developed?' Just asking... --Richhoncho (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - "We?" It's the servers doing all the "support" of maintaining viable content that no one has yet improved. You are always free to ignore any topic in which you have no interest, but you are not free to kill it out of mere impatience. postdlf (talk) 19:18, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        @Postdlf: Don't be so silly, 'We' can only mean ALL editors, that's you, me and anybody else that edits WP, specifically those that would comment on or edit this particular article. Yes, I do have an interest, that WP is a worthwhile and encyclopedic project with a longterm aim to improve, precisely where do you think my aims are wrong? --Richhoncho (talk) 00:13, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Generally, where there;s a category of manageable size, there should be a list also,. They serve complementary pruposes in findingarticles, and as finding aids, need to be judged on that basis as welll as notability . In addition to that role, lists are a specifically provided-for way of including information about subjects not meriting a whole article. As for the so far unmet need to develop, the general rule here is NO DEADLINE. DGG ( talk ) 20:53, 1 July 2018 (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.