Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about Bangalore

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. – Joe (talk) 09:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about Bangalore[edit]

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

While most of the songs do not satisfy WP:NSONG, the article itself is WP:INDISCRIMINATE having no encyclopedic value. MT Train^Discuss 07:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating for the same reason:

—MT Train^Discuss 07:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 07:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 07:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 07:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 07:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Majority of the songs do not pass WP:NSONG and lists with just a few (mostly non-notable) entries do not meet the requirements of WP:NLIST. Ajf773 (talk) 08:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NLIST is about lists of people. The relevant guideline for this discussion is WP:LISTN. Narky Blert (talk) 15:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then it fails WP:LISTN. Ajf773 (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, unless rationale can be provided why Indian cities are less worthy of a category than the other 37 similar lists in the Category:Lists of songs about a city. FWIW, I'd much rather see a referenced list than a category based on the mention of a city's name, let's be honest, this kind of list is hardly encyclopedic... --Richhoncho (talk) 10:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to merge them to here:List of songs about cities. Do we really need an article for songs about every city in the world when some cities barely have any (particularly notable songs)? Ajf773 (talk) 10:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all I dont understand how such broad rational can be used for what seems like all the cities in South Asia or at least only cities in South Asia. The similar list for Atlanta has no source and List of songs about Amsterdam has one source. Yet I didn't see any of them being nominated for deletion in the past. The absence of articles on some songs does not necessarily mean that they are not notable but simply articles have not yet been created and we do know that there is a disparity in Wikipedia. Only nominating lists of cities in South Asia only furthers systemic bias.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, the nominator is being discriminiator or somehow biased on keeping articles about Indian cities, as some editors suggested. There are similar lists about american or australian cities as well. Then why isn't he nominating all those as well here? And, If these have no encyclopedic value I suspect there is no article. At least delete all the other articles appearing in Lists of songs, if you are neutral. Makhamakhi (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked as to whether the songs on those other cities are notable, but if found not to be, in time I'll surely nominate those as well. There's no encyclopedic value in such poorly referenced articles which don't suffice notability. MT Train^Discuss 16:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per the results of e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about cities, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about California and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about Oklahoma. There was also a discussion in 2007 about multiple lists which resulted in no consensus, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about Melbourne.

Per WP:LISTN: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational ... purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability". IMO, lists of songs about places serve that purpose. The lists may need pruning so that they only include songs specifically about each city, and the sourcing could be improved, but neither is a reason for deletion.

FWIW, I've just added a general reference from Times of India to List of songs about Delhi which is specifically about songs about Delhi.

I'm surprised that this nomination includes the 10 lists which relate to the Indian Subcontinent and excludes the 37 which relate to the Americas, Australia and Europe. See Category:Lists of songs about a city. Narky Blert (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment The ten lists under discussion were all created recently and by a single editor, Makhamakhi, who exhibited a staggering lack of understanding of WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Articles Created by blocked user Makhamakhi for a discussion of whether to nuke the nearly 500 articles they created in the past six weeks). The cities for which they created song lists happen to all be in South Asia. I take the nominator's word that the nominations are based on the lists failing to meeting policies and guidelines rather than on any imagined bias against South Asia, and ask other participants to WP:AGF in that regard. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had this user under my watch for months, along with his/her sock— Ratsama (talk · contribs). All these articles can still be considered under CSD G5 if they are kept. MT Train^Discuss 15:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all--Per nominator.LISTCRUFT by a near-incompetent user.And, I will be genuinely interested if the keep !voters can churn out something other than OSE and misplaced claims of geo-bias.~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all but not because of those are South Asian cities but because of those articles doesn't satisfy WP:NSONG. --আফতাব (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSONG is irrelevant to lists. It only applies to individual songs, not to list articles. See WP:LISTN. Narky Blert (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. I looked at one of these, List of songs about Lucknow, in detail. It looks like it meets WP:LISTN to me. LISTN says, it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Well, we've got a source, 10 Bollywood Songs That Has Captured Lucknow And Its Charm. That sure seems like it meets the LISTN requirement. I only looked at the others more briefly, but at first glance, they seem like they meet LISTN as well. Bundling all of these into a single AfD doesn't help, because perhaps some are notable and some are not. I would suggest keeping them all for now and allowing (WP:NPASR) people to bring back specific ones that they really feel fail LISTN. That fact that the creator of this lists has subsequently been banned is immaterial. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That means that both List of songs about Delhi and List of songs about Lucknow have independent sources which relate to those two lists as lists per se. The proposed multiple deletion is therefore unjustified. These lists need to be discussed individually.

I agree that it's the content of the article which matters, even if it was posted by a banned user. Narky Blert (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all and tag for proper sourcing. I note not only that we have Category:Lists of songs about a city, but that List of songs about London has been tagged for sourcing since 2010, List of songs about Boston since 2011, which makes this AfD look a tad POINTy. India has a lively press and a dynamic music industry, which makes me suspect that these articles could be sourced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all . I think the general view at WP has become that we will keep lists suh as this , regardless of our own personal interests. My own general view is that lists for minor content is a good way of discouraging articles on such content, and is a reasonable compromise in such matters. Compromise is, after all, the only way we can work together. I apply it equally to the fields in which I am interested in, and to the ones in which I have no interest whatsoever. This is not my private WP. DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep any songs that are notable (i.e. have articles), delete all others. If there are no notable songs left, delete the list. This seems easier than the discussion is making it. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:LISTN says, Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable -- RoySmith (talk) 20:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also easy to resolve. If the group of items being listed itself is not notable, the WP:LISTN threshold is not met. In other words, unless there is media coverage that substantiates that songs about a certain city are notable in the first place, my cull criteria makes the most sense. If a source can be found that states songs about a certain city have particular significance in general, then we could add a preface, referencing the source in question, and then include all the non-notable songs we want, per WP:LISTN. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Although realistically, there will likely be no lists that survive this threshold, but that's the way it should be then. Non-notable songs in non-notable categories don't deserve an article. Taken to the extreme, I could upload to YouTube a video of me singing into my iPhone about my town and then add an article, sourced with the YouTube link, which we don't want. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:32, 23 February 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.