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 per consensus and lack of article improvement after last Afd discussion. Melodia, I noticed you said you have this in user subspace. That's perfectly acceptable. (userfication is often the outcome of debates for sourcing issues). If/when you feel the article in your userspace would meet the sourcing standards, let me know, we can have it put back in mainspace and have another discussion. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Melodia, I need to rephrase this, userfication preserves article history, which is required. I'll be on your talkpage to clarify in a minute...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final update. Article has been userfied to User:Melodia/List of popular songs based on classical music with history intact. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of popular songs based on classical music[edit]

List of popular songs based on classical music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Several months on, no references (which was the requirement when the first AFD was closed). While I've tried to remove OR as much as I can, some still remain, especially Canon in D Will ^(talk) 11:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever I'm sure this'll be deleted, which is a shame, as it's damn useful. Unfortunately I don't have any keep arguments beyond that, and no one's cared to find sources on stuff (which are out there, for much of it). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's the problem: like nearly every such list, it's original research out the wazoo:

1. Sez who that ""This Night" by Billy Joel ... uses Beethoven's Pathetique Sonata as the basis for the chorus"?
2. Exactly what is "Rock Me Amadeus" by Falco supposed to be based on?
3. "Mars" by Emerson, Lake & Powell is indeed simply an arrangement of the Holst. They did a lot of arrangements of orchestral pieces; is that really popular music?

There are exactly two references, and one of them is a dead link to YouTube. The other one doesn't seem to go to anything substantive. This is essentially the same situation as the fourth wall lists: it's done routinely, the lists are never cited, and they grow indefinitely. It took four tries to get rid of those lists, but for this we should get it over with and DELETE now. Mangoe (talk) 13:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm at it: part of the problem is that the whole notion isn't notable anyway. Musicians have been borrowing/taking/stealing from each other (never mind out-and-out covers) since music began. So this is a list of "dog bits man" cases. Mangoe (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete previous AfD was "keep and add references as a matter of urgency"; that was not done, so out it goes. The days of endlessly keeping while waiting for sources which will be along Real Soon Now are, I think, over. Guy (Help!) 13:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Well, let's see here. 60 items... 2 references. Things aren't looking good. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe the best solution would be to convert it to a category... Category:Popular songs based on classical music - AnonMoos (talk) 14:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unreferenced per nom. Seems full of OR. Eusebeus (talk) 17:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. Good reason is given for further referencing. If the items on a list can be documented by the details in the articles on them, copying the reference over is trivial; having the information available there shows that it is sourceable. The place for this discussion is on the article talk page. DGG (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunetly, that's what the closure of the LAST AFD specified, and that never happened (I'll grant that I didn't work on it, but...I've never been one to do deep research on WP in general). So this page'll probably get deleted for the sake of the fact that the 'stipulation' of the closure of the previous one wasn't reached (though, the person who closed it wasn't an admin and has been known to be pretty heavy handed on things). It's a shame, but for now I have the list on a user subpage of mine, which I believe is allowed, and I hope to ref it up sooner or later and remake it, if I can. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The topic itself (rock based on classical) has been the subject of at least a couple books and articles. (I'm too lazy to search for them now.) Chop everything down to the entries with sources, even if it's just two entries. Monitor the page and aggressively delete unsourced additions until editors get the idea. (IMO, that's the approach we should take with most [List of "genre" bands]] articles too.) —Torc. ^(Talk.) 06:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I totally agree that a category would be useful. Several pages with lists of popular songs based on classical music, grouped by the piece they are based upon might be useful. A single page with only a few examples of such popular music, which doesn't even give a hint what piece of classical music they are based upon is not useful at all. Additionally, there should be some guideline on what 'based upon' means, or else you could write down almost all popular music, since almost all our music is derived from classical music. — I could single-handedly provide lists of references to classical music, music based on chords from famous classical pieces, or even dumb "take a classical piece, drop a baseline onto it and let someone sing or rap" covers, each list as long as the list in question, but every such list would be biased and totally incomplete. -- DerGraph (talk) 12:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list is always going to be incomplete, but that's not a cause for deletion. I just don't see how a category is going to fix any of the problems you list; in fact, I think it'll make the lack of citations and the lack of guideline for what is meant by "based upon" significantly worse. Per WP:CLS, it shouldn't really be a category-vs.-list choice anyway. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 23:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand. This is only a list article. As long as the references are on the separate linked pages that's good enough. Eclecticology (talk) 08:12, 10 March 2008 (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.