Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about masturbation (4th 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 delete.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 18:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about masturbation

Given all the List of song about nominations, it's reasonable to nominate this as it certainly fits the bill. Despite all the "ILIKEIT" and "ITSFUNNY" reasonings that pushed this into no consensus twice, I think a solid fourth review is needed. Bulldog123 16:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mmmmm solid fourth review? Mike33 14:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

definitely, the fourth review Lentower 08:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right but the first ended in "keep" not "no consensus" so I didn't count it. I'll change it though. Bulldog123 03:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

closing Admin: Bulldog123 opening paragraph above is full of POV. His analysis of the prior AfDs is biased. The fact that other List of song about articles are nominated is irrelevant - an article stands by itself. And he gives no reason there why this is a bad article. Lentower 15:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how you expect someone to not be POV in an AfD debate. Besides, all I said is that many in the original AfDs were not convincing keep arguments (which, yes, is an opinion) but apparently a lot of people think they weren't convincing either. Bulldog123 13:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as pure WP:TRIVIA, loosely-associated topics, etc. etc. I'd work in some lame double entendre but I'm not that kind of guy. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 16:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's already a category to house the notable songs. Most of these are not actually about masturbation. They simply make reference to it. Songs are notable and masturbation is notable, but masturbation songs are not a particularly notable variety of song. GassyGuy 16:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & ↑, etc. (esp. WP:NOT). --Evb-wiki 17:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unlike the article listed above, this one certainly is unmaintainable and unencyclopedic. EliminatorJR ^Talk 18:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is what categories are for and these types of list are always deleted based on WP:NOT#INFO.--Svetovid 20:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am voting to keep on the principal that without even reading the article it is against good faith to repeatedly nominate an article for WP:AFD until you get lucky enough to have the right set of respondents to delete it. This is just taking another stab at the same apple and it is wrong to do. I am not even reading the article although I can surely tell why it has its detractors by its title.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It has been eight months since the last discussion, which was inconclusive like the first. It would be different, if this was renominating a discussion resulting in a "keep" consensus, or it was a discussion that had just recently concluded. --Evb-wiki 20:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Despite what it might look like, this is only the third nomination, not the fourth or fifth. Three nominations are usually totally acceptable. Bulldog123 12:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong, this is the fourth AfD, not the third. only the obvious 2 of the 6 AfDs cited above are redirects. Go check yourself. A 2nd AfD is barely acceptable. We should all be adding content, not wasting our time on 3rd and 4th AfDs. Lentower 08:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- FamedDeletionist 21:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Liscruft and somewhat useless trivia--JForget 22:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reviewed the article, which has held up well, despite being walked in on three or four times already. More detailed than most "list of songs about____" and written by someone who is clearly a master of this particular domain of music. It's clear that the author has spent a lot of time (by himself, of course) working and working on this until he got the result that he wanted. No other songs about forms of abstinence, and no less valid than songs about sexual intercourse. Mandsford 00:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, what is your argument besides that it's fun for you to make masturbation puns? GassyGuy 01:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Good point. My argument is that the article is well written, could probably be improved with additional sourcing (besides the obvious lyrics pages), addresses a subject that obviously would not be in a papr encyclopedia, and is describes the fact that taboo subjects tend to be described only in pop music. Can't think of a poem about this, can you? Hmmm... a List of masturbation puns? What an idea. Mandsford 12:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Yet as I've said before, the lyrics are very much open to interpretation (you can't really verify that something is innuendo, can you?). Calgary 05:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aside from strong precedent that lists such as this should be deleted, I find it incredibly difficult to believe that every song in this list is about masturbation. Most, it seems, simply involve one line that either directly, or through a euphanism, mention masturbation. Two different concepts. The list as it stands is without value. Resolute 04:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete not a particularly useful page. Turning Japanese by the Vapors? Wow, I thought it was about...

...come to think, what the hell is it about? Kripto 10:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete changed my position (pardon the double entendre) on this one, per all the other "songs about" problems. Carlossuarez46 17:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The format and subject of most "List of songs about..." articles makes them worth deleting. But this article actually provides the relevant lyrics. This means the article can be more easily verified. It also avoids the trap of picking a too general subject or listing songs that merely use suggestive puns. If someone were to write a paper on masturbation in 20th century popular culture this list could actually be quite helpful. Cedars 03:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except the lyrical excerpts either lead one astray (or prove, depending on your familiarity with each song) that these songs are, in fact, not for the most about actually about masturbation, but rather mention it in passing, making this association just as trivial as most of the song lists. GassyGuy 06:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I really hate lists, that are just incredibly boring links to other articles that I could have googled much easier. This is quite something else and has the makings of a useful tool. He's knocked out some well observed lyric references, though I do appreciate that some of them may be WP:OR. I think editors who are raising a keep will work on it too. Mike33 17:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's say a team of 10 people worked on this list for three days. How will that change the fact that it's really just a random collection of information in the end? Bulldog123 06:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The current state of the article may suck, but if it were to be thoroughly reviewed and sourced, it'd be a perfectly acceptable list. --Hemlock Martinis 08:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I get that you're trying to make a cross-afd point about improving articles rather than deleting them, but in this case, it's grossly irrelevant. What more could honestly be done with this list? Include songs that are entirely about masturbation, or bolden the masturbation innuendos? Fact of the matter is, there's nothing to improve. It's just a trivia-based arbitrary listing, and for some reason I doubt many college students are going to be disappointed this list was deleted since they were going to base it on their discourse. Bulldog123 21:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Masturbation is one of the ultimate acts of profanity. Why else the divine genocide of infant felines? Songs about this act of blasphemous violence are of vital interest to Angels of Vengeance as well as trivia writers. Of course, most remotely scintillating wiki entries are vital to the latter group. Alas, the AFD-fetishists, with their chants of WP:NOTTHISNOTTHATNOTANYTHING, are engaged in an ongoing pogrom to drive them off the website.--Perceive 02:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this contribution speediable under patent nonsense? GassyGuy 07:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is slighty funny, if that's what he was going for. Bulldog123 22:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep stop deleting all those useful song lists. Sala Skan 17:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bizarrely well tended-to. Verifiably accurate and reasonably complete...Leave it alone already. --zenohockey 18:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above. More trivial claptrap. -R. fiend 19:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Very well kept and done. Verifiably accurate and reasonably complete.. After 3 AfDs, why do we need another?!? This list has only gotten better over that time. Please let this one be the last one. Lentower 07:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, the list is barely verifiable, as when a specific lyric is not given, here is no citation (or any citations in the article whatsoever), and when a specific lyric is given, more often than not the sample is not conclusive, and is instead massively subject to interpretation. Calgary 05:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's just a list about songs, just with the topic of masturbation. Masturbation is a cultural theme, and is relevant to knowledge. If we delete this list, we might as well delete everything in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Dynamic_lists_of_songs since this would be a precedent stating "no song lists!"--Jhskulk 12:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Divided no consensus - relist or another Afd in two weeks - keep or delete? Its getting silly now. Mike33 16:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Had this ended in "keep" the second time it was nominated, renominating wouldn't make much sense. The list moved from that to 'no consensus' when usually it is the opposite that should arise. Bulldog123 13:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Bulldog, I was less than clear. I think that you should relist this for another 5 days, so that other editors can contribute. At the moment IMHO, it looks like another "no consensus" and I think that raising an Afd every month or two isn't good for wikipedia (100+ Afd nearly every day). lets get a definate keep or delete. If after another 5 days, it seems clear that we are still stuck with no consensus, I will change my comment to delete and explain my rationale and hope other editors will follow suit. I accept that it seems a ruthless thing to do, but the continual refering of articles to Afd may be seen as disruptive and certainly doesn't help make Wikipedia good. If deletion stops Afds being raised than this can only be a good thing. Mike33 21:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then. Though I don't see how an AfD is that bad a thing. Bulldog123 20:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The time spend on over a 100 AfDs/day and DRVs would in this case (a 2nd or greater AfD) and many others be better spent adding and improving content. Pick any {{fact}} and fixing it is a better use of editor's time. Lentower 02:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe AfD is a vital process for the survival of wikipedia as a legitimate source of information. AfDs prevent it from turning into myspace, facebook, a blog, or someone's advertisement vehicle and many other things. If you don't, then oh well. Bulldog123 03:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no we have WP:CSD for those kind of issues. Afd is treated like some kind of joke by editors. Mike33 04:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unscholarly and disreputable, no sources. The trouble with the lack of sources is highlighted by the fact that some of these songs like have nothing to do with masturbation at all (though many plainly do;) in these cases I doubt the songwriters would appreciate the appearance of their lyrics on this list.Proabivouac 03:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The problem with the article is not only that it is a violation of WP:TRIVIA. The article does not deal with songa about masturbation, it deals primarily with songs that make some sort of passing reference to masturbation, making these songs very loosely associated. Also, when an actual lyric is quoted, such a lyric is very often subject to interpretation, and while it's possible that it's referring to masturbation, it is not actually confirmed (as the article does not cite it's sources). If this article were a list of songs about masturbation then we may have something to discuss, but what we're dealing with would be much more accurately named if it were called "List of songs which are believed to make reference to masturbation". And if it was actually called that, I doubt we'd be having this discussion. Calgary 04:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike33

Strong Delete WP:TRIVIA. Oyster guitarist 04:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To be honest I enjoyed the debate better than the article. If we start with a list about “List of songs about masturbation” what is the next one “Songs about Love’ or say “Songs about Herbie” or even “Songs about Fingers” are any of these noteworthy? If they are not, neither is List of songs about masturbation. ShoesssS ^Talk 04:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I consider pretty much all these "List of songs about ______" as trivia, which violates WP:FIVE for WP not being a "trivia collection". Also WP:NOT comes into play as this being a list of loosely associated topics. Only thing common here is that these are 1) songs and 2)describe "an activity". Corpx 05:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As pthers have noted, this list is pure trivia. (Perhaps there ought to be a Trivipedia.org for this sort of entry.) —SlamDiego_←T 05:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. This has no value. Plantocal 05:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivia. --Malcolmxl5 06:30, 15 July 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.