Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unboundedly long songs

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 no consensus. Bucketsofg 03:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of unboundedly long songs[edit]

Original research, unverified. —tregoweth (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. "List of songs of length N" is pointless for any N. - Chardish 01:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The previous two writers raise valid points, which will probably win the discussion, but I'll speak for the opposing side. I was a child once, and I know that some of these songs, most especially The Song That Never Ends, are infinite loops or unbounded. The fact that there are many of these shows it's a common cultural trend, so a list (or category?) may be appropriate. I'm not sure how to counter the OR problem: how do I find a source for the fact that I used to sing those songs in fourth grade riding with my friends on the bus? YechielMan 01:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Published books of children's songs would probably be a good place to start. You need some way to verify notability, however, I'd argue that the same song appearing in several (5+?) books by different authors and publishers would probably be a fair indicator of notability. Nonetheless, such research should be added to the main articles themselves: if the underlying concept of a list is not notable, the list should not be kept. (In other words, "List of cities with green fire hydrants" is not notable if green fire hydrants are not themselves notable.) - Chardish 02:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep per YechieMan; these songs have significant cultural value. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as it seems better suited as a category than a list.--TBCΦtalk? 02:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with TBC, it is better off as a category if anything is to be done with it other than delete. Largely unverified and potentially original research or personal opinions. Darth griz⁹⁸ 02:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve per nom and comments here. Article could be sourced, and all included songs could be notable, and even perhaps have their own articles. Quality of article as a snapshot in time is not valid criteria for deletion.. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, WP:SOFIXIT. Jerry lavoie 02:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burden of evidence for referencing and for showing that an article is not original research ultimately rests with those wishing to keep the article Bwithh ^{Join Up! See the World!} 08:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and chardish. Original research. Resolute 02:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag for lack of sources per Jerry lavoie. MalikCarr 02:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If kept, the article would benefit from a tighter definition of "unboundedly long." There is a definite difference between neverending songs like...well, like The Song That Never Ends which really doesn't end, and a rock song with an improvised jam at the end that fades away into silence. Including the second group invites abuse. I'm also thinking there might be a less awkward title. Joyous! | Talk 03:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This list lumps a bunch of different concepts under the "unbounded" label: songs like "The Song That Never Ends" that "never end" until the singers get bored; songs like "Row Row Row Your Boat" which are just really short and are usually repeated over and over when sung; songs like "Down By The Bay" which usually go on for a while with different ad hoc variations for each verse; and songs like "BINGO" which do have a definite end but are just repetitive childrens songs. It doesn't form a coherent concept at all. Krimpet 03:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this seems like a perfectly valid list. However, "unboundedly long" should be defined such that it doesn't include songs which are sung repeatedly in succession and songs which are just long, but still having a bound. And, of course, we need sources. -Amarkov moo! 04:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Amarkov. Cleanup should be attempted before it's deleted. hateless 04:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:YechielMan. Sources can be found (children's song books, etc.). Also, User:Chardish makes a good point that "List of songs of length N is pointless for any N". However, there is one exception: when N=∞. There are relatively few such songs, but most are notable and they are all tied together by this common link. -- Black Falcon 04:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve per nom. » K i G O E | talk 04:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How is this significant? I disagree that not having a discernable end somehow makes this an exceptional length. I think you'd all find that there are very few songs with track times of 10:24. Shall I start that list? And could not any song conceivably go on this list? For example: "Row Row Row Your Boat" is actually a very short song. It is sometimes arranged as a round or a medley and could conceivably be arranged to go on infinitely, but, so could any song if you actually wanted it to do so. For a random example: "Not Ready to Make Nice" begins and ends with the same lines. One could easily make the end the beginning and sing the song on loop. Would such a mix merit inclusion on this list? GassyGuy 04:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or at least rename: "unboundedly"?) semper fictilis 05:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per those advocating it, unless citations are provided and such songs as are in fact short but frequently repeated (Row, Row, Row Your Boat is the classic example) are removed. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article should be properly referenced and sourced or it must go as original research. I don't support any grace period - this article was created as an unreferenced OR stub in December 2005 (curiously by a user who was an administrator at the time (and still is)) and has not improved at all in terms of referenced, encyclopedic content despite numerous edits[1] (including recent exposure in a number of popular blogs - there has no shortage of attention to the article). Even the title appears to be a OR concoction[2]. Bwithh ^{Join Up! See the World!} 08:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unverifiable original research. Potentially infinite list: canons or rounds can be sung forever, as well. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This has no encyclopedic significance. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 08:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not relevant to wikipedia and fails WP:NOT#INFO.Telly addict^{Editor review!} 13:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article doesn't meet criteria for deletion under Wikipedia's "not an indiscriminate collection of information" policy. The policy covers FAQs, travel guides, memorials, instruction manuals, internet guides, textbooks & annotated text, plot summaries, and lyrics databases, saying that these are not valid uses for Wikipedia. However, this article does not fall into any of those categories – or am I missing something? » K i G O E | talk 16:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per Krimpet et al. Shmuel 15:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Krimpet says, this is a loose association of dissimilar concepts. Guy (Help!) 16:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the list has a defined scope, and just needs to be maintained.-- danntm ^T _C 17:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly the reasons for the songs nature is relevant, and maybe this should be accompanied by an article, illustrating the reasons (for example "Ivan's in the Garden picking Cabbages" was being sung by a number of Russian soldiers in WWI as they fought, using their rifles as clubs, having run out of bullets), many are traditional or humerous sones, some are work songs, or might pertain to military cadence. And the list does need continuous maintenance, to clearly classify the nature of the songs, and possibly a link to unbounded chants, monologues, dialogues and stories. Rich Farmbrough, 20:14 19 February 2007 (GMT).
Delete per above.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 20:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as likely original research. It's an interesting idea, sure, but I don't see any kind of sourcing that can bring these various songs together as the page tries to do. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR with no verification, and many of the entries definitely do not fit the list criteria. Also, as Krimpet states, there's no coherent concept. -- Kicking222 20:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update. I've read the discussion, and I've decided to do the following.

I will move the article (pending admin approval) to "List of repetitive songs". People do use "repetitive songs" (I can cite references on that), so it solves the problem with the title.
I will rewrite the introduction, again from references, as best I can.
I will delete items on the list that are not blue-linked to relevant articles. What does that accomplish? Very simple. It defers the problem of original research from the list article to the linked article. If you don't believe that "the song that never ends" is repetitive, go check its article. If you don't believe that article, slap an OR tag to that article. YechielMan 04:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I have never seen anyone move a page during an AfD discussion, though I can't find anywhere in the AfD etiquette that says you shouldn't. Be warned that it may be interpreted as bad faith. You should probably wait for consensus to be reached before you make any sweeping changes to a page like a merge, move, or redirect. - Chardish 20:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not generally done, but in this case not problem I think. Rich Farmbrough, 22:09 20 February 2007 (GMT).
    - I wasn't aware it was problematic. I was just being bold. I'm no longer active in this discussion, but I take no firm position on what the article title should be. YechielMan 05:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but the name has not received sufficient discussion, and should be done (or redone) as a Requested Move. I hink the cvlosest general word would be "recursive" but there may be a specific rhetorical term.DGG 02:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unboundedness as a characteristic of songs is verifiable and interesting. Alternately, make it a category. Kla'quot 07:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not really encyclopedia importance. Not enough songs to provide importance. Captain panda In vino veritas 16:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but I'd support a move to 'List of recursive songs', per DGG. -- Vary | Talk 21:23, 24 February 2007 (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.