Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about killers (3rd 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about killers[edit]

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

wp:notdir violation - non-encyclopaedic cross-categorization. Unmaintainably large, and almost completely unsourced. Claritas § 08:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never having seen this list before, I was expecting something very different from its title and the deletion nom—a list of songs generally about killing, or in which some vague protoganist may or may not be a killer, or it may or may not be a metaphor for something else, blah blah blah, wishy washy OR. But this list is actually very specific and well organized: it's a list of songs about real, notable killers, organized by the subject (Charles Manson, Lizzie Borden, etc.). Though largely unverified at present, this is obviously verfiable, and AFD is not for articles that can be cleaned up. I don't get how this is unmaintainable, though perhaps the title should be made more precise to better reflect its contents, and the unelaborated claim that this is somehow an unencyclopedic cross-categorization is just empty words. So keep. postdlf (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's an unencyclopaedic cross-categorization in that Songs about killers is not an encyclopaedic topic. The songs should be mentioned on the biographies of the criminals - the list is a directory of (mainly non-notable) songs. Claritas § 13:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're still throwing in the words "cross-categorization" without tethering it to anything. This list is not the intersection of two or more unrelated things (as in this recent AFD); it's a list of songs organized by their subject matter. That you think that subject matter is unencyclopedic is another matter. I don't think it's necessary for a full article to be written about every list topic in order for that list to be valid, though given the "further reading" section at the bottom, it looks like there are actually many sources about songs written about killers. It also isn't necessary for every entry on a list to be notable (i.e., merit its own article), so long as (in this case) it's a song by a notable band and/or on a notable album. Again, even assuming that there are songs in this list that fail to meet content inclusion standards, the solution is to remove them, not to delete the entire list. postdlf (talk) 14:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOTDIR does not forbid lists, as lists are a well-established object on Wikipedia. This list is obviously not unmaintainably large as we have other lists on Wikipedia with over 100,000 entries and this list doesn't even come close. It is not completely unsourced but contains several excellent sources such as American Murder Ballads and their Stories, published by the Oxford University Press. There are lots more sources out there as there seems to be a vast literature about serial killers and their coverage in the media. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per postdlf. This is a valuable collection of information organized in way that works better on Wikipedia than anywhere else.--Arxiloxos (talk) 03:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Postdlf. Claritas, I do not think "non-encyclopaedic cross-categorization" means what you think it means. Jclemens (talk) 05:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I really don't see how this is different to the Muslim footballer example given. Listing songs in terms of one aspect of them (the subject), is just as problematic as doing so with persons. I can't see how mentioning a murderer is the most important link between these songs. How "valuable" the information is has no bearing whatsoever. The issue is that this is a list of non-notable entities, and a cross-categorization, and thus violated WP:NOTDIR. Claritas § 07:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're consistently operating from numerous incorrect premises regarding lists. There is no requirement that a list group entries by "the most important link," because one list is not mutually exclusive with other lists organized around other "links" (i.e., shared facts). So any single entry could be present in multiple lists that index its connection to other entries by various shared facts. So let's not see that claim again in another AFD, okay?
The subject matter of a song is integral to that song; it's what the song is about. Wikipedia did not invent the concept of grouping creative works by subject matter. This list further groups its entries by the specific killer; you can't seriously contend that one song about Charles Manson has no reasonable connection to another song about Charles Manson (particularly since you said you'd rather see all the sublists dumped into the articles on the killers themselves). Note that I'm assuming this list does more than just group songs that "mention" the killer, as you've instead characterized it; to the extent that's not true, the list needs to be pruned, but cleanup is not grounds for deletion.
Repeating your opinion ("cross-categorization"..."violated WP:NOTDIR") does not advance or strengthen your argument. postdlf (talk) 12:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see a problem with it. It is not a directory, and I am not sure why the subject is inherently "non-encyclopedic". Some of the songs need links to the appropriate article (either the song itself or an album) though. Rlendog (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, needs a better name Grouping songs by theme seems entirely reasonable. No way could this be handled by e.g. categories. TheGrappler (talk) 03:23, 24 August 2010 (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.