: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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the debate was Delete --Gareth Hughes 16:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

List of songs whose title appears more than twenty times in the lyrics

A song can easily be made with it's title occurring more than 20 times. People will flip through their CD, vinyl and tape collections and find lots of songs like that.
- Delete since this trait is rather common in songs; rendering the topic subtrivial. Not to mention the list is rendered unmaintainable as well. --SuperDude 04:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete in accordance with the nomination, SuperDude's comment, and of course WP:NOT section 1.7 regarding indiscriminate collection of information. The Literate Engineer 04:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- I find this rather silly delete 20pxMolotov 25px (talk)
04:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete all lists of songs that do not establish some sort of plausible and substantial artistic commonality between the entries. And... why 20? flowersofnight 04:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Its sad just how much energy it is taking to delete stuff like this. Its going to become a major problem. Maybe there should be more steps to be got through to post an article in the first place? Like article gets submitted, then needs vote to create rather than vote to delete? In any case, this ones gotta go.--Gaff ^talk 04:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- Just think, if more people voted on Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Lists of songs this might be easier in the future —Wahoofive (talk) 04:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - Who dreams these articles up; please get a life. Storm Rider 05:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC) Comment this article has been up since 15 March 2003. There are many, many edits to it and perhaps that should be brought to consideration prior to its deletion. This list represents nothing but a collection of trivial facts. While it might be of interest to some, it just does not impress me as the kind of stuff appropriate for an encyclopedia. Perhaps that is an overly deletionist approach. I dunno.--Gaff ^talk 06:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I quote (from the link above): Some Wikipedians feel that some topics are unsuitable by virtue of the nature of the topic. They feel that some topics are trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to human knowledge. If you create a list like the "list of shades of colours of apple sauce", be prepared to explain why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge.. this list is like the colours of apple sauce. Overly-long, potentailly unupdatable, trivial (why could it not be 25 times? or thirty? Do we need a separate article for all of them?) and thus deletable. Batmanand 06:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete an unmaintainable, trivial list with arbitrary criteria. Yeesh. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 07:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as per Batmanand. I hate to delete something that people have put a significant effort into, but I don't think these song lists are appropriate for an encyclopedia. Can it be moved to a user page or offsite? -- Kjkolb 07:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Meaningless trivia. CalJW 11:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Utterly pointless. How about a list of songs whose title appears more than 10 times, and 50 times, and 3 times - it's a completely arbitrary selection and totally useless. --StoatBringer 12:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  - Yeah. There are many other similar articles that could be created. Delete --Optichan 16:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, pointless listcruft. Punkmorten 12:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- RETAIN. If you're going to keep articles on moronic and useless topics like whether we really went to the moon or not, then you can't argue for deleting this one, which is truly factual even if it's trivial. Wahkeenah 17:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  - Yes, but...who would ever go to an encyclopedia to find out a piece of information like this?--Gaff ^talk 17:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
    - Who are we to presume to tell readers what they should be allowed to look for or not? Wahkeenah 17:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
      - WE are Wikipedians. WE have limitted server space and bandwidth. WE have a deletion policy, which anyone is welcome to add to. WE, therefore, have perfect right to say what should and should not be in our encyclopaedia. Batmanand 11:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete More useless listcruft --JAranda | watz sup 19:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as trivial listcruft. I really wish the time and energy put into stuff like this was devoted to real articles. MCB 23:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- If you deleted all the useless articles on wikipedia, you could save a bundle on disk space, on the TRS-80 this website runs on. So much "listcruft", so little time. Wahkeenah 23:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Not useful.
- drew 05:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete unless someone can explain why twenty is such a magical number that the existence of this list won't demand complimentary lists for songs that repeat the title nineteen times (or twenty-one times, etc). -Sean Curtin 07:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete there are some possible interesting criteria to make lists of songs out of, this is not one. --TimPope 09:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Since it seems clear that this article will be deleted, I'm wondering if it might set the record for the article that existed the longest before being deleted (as noted above, it has endured for more than two and a half years). Given that most deleted articles are only a few days or weeks old, that has to be noteworthy. Andrew Levine 22:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete This is the very definition of a trivial list. Xoloz 12:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- Archive, then delete. I actually find the list interesing. If anybody can, send/link me a copy of the page before it's deleted. --G VOLTT 00:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Unmaintanable. Also, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. I appreciate that someone went through the trouble of counting the number of times a song's title appears in the song (which activity, at the same time, I find somewhat odd), but this is really the epitome of trivia. - Sensor 03:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- RETAIN (mostly because there is only one vote for that so far), and to whoever was asking 'who comes to an encyclopedia looking for this kind of thing', how many people are directed here by search engines, that may not know where to be looking. (I confess I got to the page through an internal link, but the title did interest me enough to follow it.) just some random surfer :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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.