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, default to Keep. Walton^One 16:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of self-referential songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

The first two AFDs ended in "keep" (though the second was speedy keep for immediate renomination) but but the lack of participation and policy-based reasonings instigated a third afd, which ended in " no consensus to delete ". However, ignoring WP:ILIKEIT and complaints that the initial afd ended in keep, this would have met with deletion. First problem is that "self-referential" ends up being extremely subjective in some circumstances, and often totally up to the contributor's discretion. Secondly, the list itself is essentially for music-trivia buffs and lacks any justification as "encyclopedic". See Wikipedia:Overlistification#Trivia proposal. Bulldog123 20:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - List appears to be verifiable. The criteria is objective: self-referential means that the song talks about the song - that is not subjective as the nom claims, and disputed entries can be individually challenged; there is no need to remove the entire list because some potential entries, someday, might maybe violate inclusion criteria. Finally, the songs all appear to be by notable artists. In short, the article meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Neither "listcruft" nor "unencyclopedic" are deletion criteria by themselves, and the previous AfDs seem to have taken this into account. Nominator points out that the second AfD discussion was closed because of speedy renomination, but does not mention that the first AfD closed with an essentially unanimous keep. Nothing has changed since that time, and while consensus can change, this looks like a case of "ask the other parent" until it gets removed. I read the overlistification proposal (it's just a proposal at this point), but even there I don't see anything that can apply to this article; it has not been a target of a lot of non-notable, unmaintainable entries. Some people don't seem to like it... and there seems to be something of an anti-list purge in fashion at the moment, but there are no violations here, not with this article. ◄Zahakiel► 21:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is subjective criteria. For example how come "Another Song About The Rain" by Cracker is self-referential while other songs that mention their title aren't? And most importantly, how is this encyclopedic material? Wikipedia is the collection of all human knowledge but not a random collection of knowledge. Bulldog123 23:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You say "it is subjective," but then you give an example that meets the criteria, and obviously so. Clearly, "another song" about rain is another song about rain. It references itself. I am not sure why you say "other songs that mention their title are not." We are not talking about songs that merely include their titles in the lyrics, but songs that talk about themselves as songs. That's really clear-cut, and if any particular elements of the list violate this criteria, remove it - that's all. It sounds like you are saying, "Since not every song that references itself is not yet in this list, and since some entries don't fit the criteria, we should delete the list." No, no... Finally, the phrase "encyclopedic material" may itself be subjective, this is why "unencyclopedic" is not a policy-based reason for deletion. It is, in fact, one of the arguments to avoid although you consider it "most important," because, as the essay there points out, it's not a substantial argument. It may be a contributing factor for removing articles; but by itself it is not a reason. This list is not random, according to the previous AfDs, and the policies I mentioned above that are not violated by this article. "Uncyclopedic" is basically an "I don't think it's useful" argument, not anything grounded in the criteria for inclusion. ◄Zahakiel► 23:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • True that "it's unencyclopedic" isn't a good argument. But to cover for that, there's WP:NOT#DIR, and since you nor anyone else has really proven this isn't a random collection of information, it kind of does fall under that blanket. As for the example, the fact that you interpret it as a song that references itself because IT is the song about rain, and I interpret it as just having the title "another song about the rain" in the same way that any other song has the title in the lyrics, shows that this is subjective criteria perfectly. Bulldog123 23:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:NOT#DIR is an even worse argument. This is not a directory, nor a "loosely associated" collection of data. The word "random" has no bearing here, because the criteria is explicitly designed. You also don't seem to understand how AfD works... the article exists already; the burden of proof that it violates policy is on the nominator... those !voting "keep" do not have the onus to show that it is "not" random, or "not" unencyclopedic. Further, my "interpretation" of the song as refering to itself as a song is simply a matter of reading the title and looking at the list. The fact that there can be unusual interpretations of English words does not mean they are subjective. I am glad, at least, that you now see your major argument "isn't a good" one. That's a step, but I do not want you to fall back on inapplicable policies that you think "kind of" covers it either. WP:NOT#DIR is for articles that are lists of elements that are not connected to each other by rigid criteria. The list of songs that reference themselves (not that reference their topics, but themselves - the songs) is, as I've said already, pretty easy to understand. This is about self-referential songs, not about "songs that contain their titles." Those are two different things, and you are misreading the intent of the list and then claiming, "Because I can misread it, it is subjective." ◄Zahakiel► 00:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#DIR is for articles that are lists of elements that are not connected to each other by rigid criteria. The list of songs that reference themselves (not that reference their topics, but themselves - the songs). You summed up what I meant right there. Bulldog123 00:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By pointing out what the rigid criteria was? Let's not grasp at straws here. ◄Zahakiel► 00:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By highlighting that these songs are connected to each other by a significance-less similarity. Why not List of songs that mention the color blue then? I'm sure it can be easily verified, and there's no doubt plenty of songs rhyme "blue" with something. Note that a list of songs where the title has a day of the week (or some strange title, try to find the afd) was deleted, as were Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs with personal names: A. So trivial similarities simply don't cut it, even if the material is easily verifiable. Bulldog123 00:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now you are using an "otherstuffwasdeleted" argument, which is not the same as WP:NOT#DIR and maybe editors will respect that more. It is, however, another argument to avoid... "Significance-less" is subjective. Do you actually have a policy-based reason for deleting this list? Some people might think it's trivial, others might think it is an unusual (and notably so) characteristic of some songs. We will just have to see what the other editors who vote here think. ◄Zahakiel► 00:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't judged by a popularity contest. List of drinking songs would be notable because a drinking song is a cultural phenomena. Exactly how does List of self-referential songs pass in this respect? It doesn't. It's just trivia. And examples of precedent don't hurt. Bulldog123 01:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to point out how arbitrary that is. According to you, "list of drinking songs" is notable. I really don't think so. You're doing exactly what I said you were doing, applying your own opinion of what is "trivial" and what is notable, and making an argument for deletion based upon, "I don't think it's encyclopedic." I've never heard drinking songs called a "cultural phenomenon" before... that's a new one to me. ◄Zahakiel► 09:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Linking you to Drinking song and then challenging you to make self-reference in songwriting in equal quality is enough I think. Bulldog123 16:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No. See below on my statement re: breaking the fourth wall. This is a notable criteria for songs, movies, TV shows, art, etc. ◄Zahakiel► 18:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Breaking the fourth wall isn't the same thing as self-referencing. See below. Bulldog123 21:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, list is easily verifiable and has specific criteria so that it doesn't become uncontrollable. As stated above, "listcruft" isn't a valid argument. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 23:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "listcruft" isn't the argument, and saying it is is pulling a straw man. Bulldog123 23:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• My bad. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is no different than songs that mentioned a personal name. I am looking at this as "List of songs that mention itself". I think making a list of what songs mention is extremely trival thing to do here. Corpx 00:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I think the arguments made against List of songs which refer to other songs still apply here. To quote that nominator, this is "another sprawling ([98]K and counting) unsourced, indiscriminate list, a directory of loosely associated topics. The list brings together songs with no commonality in style, theme or content beyond happening to supposedly refer to [themselves] in a line or two of the lyrics. This list tells us nothing about the listed songs... or music in general." -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 00:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a massive, jumbled, indiscriminate collection of information. There is no possibility of a clear criterion for inclusion or exclusion. This list does not exist for the purpose of transferring meaningful information to a reader's brain, it exists solely for the sake of listing stuff. Reyk _YO! 02:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Weak, because a lot of people have worked on this one and here we are voting to get rid of it. IDONTLIKEIT is not an argument, I realize. My problem with this one is that although it's been a popular list, and attracted many contributions, it appears that any song with the word "This" can make the list... which is different from a song about itself. I can think of a few songs about themselves... the themes to Jimmy Neutron and It's Garry Shandling's Show, Sherry and Lambchop's This is the song that never ends and Carly Simon's You're So Vain. On the other hand, is a newspaper story that begins with "This is the story of..." a story about the newspaper itself? Of course not. Mandsford 03:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mansford's last comment is what I was trying to say but couldn't. That's a very good example. Bulldog123 03:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that is why we have rules of etiquette when writing letters and essays. It is generally considered bad form to begin a letter by saying, "I am writing this letter to say/ask..." because it is self-referential. A newspaper article that says "this is a story of" does reference itself, but newspaper articles are not notable, the topics they cover are. Songs, on the other hand, can be notable for a number of reasons, so you're not really comparing apples to apples in terms of what would be included in Wikipedia. ◄Zahakiel► 09:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I am somewhat surprised by what I found in looking at the article; although footnotes to the places one plucked the quotes from would be better by way of WP:V, they can no doubt be found. I appreciate Mandsford's comment and where the actual words provide ambiguity, the reader can judge for himself or herself, unless WP:RSes can be found to show the meaning one way or another. This is done in numerous articles: virtually any exegetical one, those dealing with various any other written document (constitutions, treaties, books, novels), and yes, songs and films. So, that's no barrier to keeping it. But ultimately is this encyclopedic? It's a close call, but I will give it the benefit of that doubt. Carlossuarez46 06:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per nom. This is even more useless and then List of titles with "Darker" in them. What about a list of songs that reference other songs, or a list of songs that reference songs that reference the first song? List of songs that are are exactly 3min 24s (without opening and closing silence), List of songs that contain the note G, List of songs on that are on this list (I made these links just to show that they are not on Wikipedia, as this one shouldn't be). JohnnyMrNinja 08:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Zahakiel. Easily verified. Lugnuts 08:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Needs to be cleaned up, not deleted. --Hemlock Martinis 08:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clean up what exactly? It looks perfectly cleaned up. Bulldog123 16:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Unlike most of the other List of songs that meet whatever criterion articles that have been deleted lately, I feel that this one is about a topic that could be the subject of an article itself (which would be called something like Self-reference in songwriting). I therefore feel that this list is more encyclopedic than most. JulesH 11:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ofcourse, Self-reference in songwriting would be met with immediate AfD from other users as it lacks notability. I can't find any articles/books on the significant of self-reference in songwriting. Why not self-reference in fiction-writing, film-making, and art next? Bulldog123 16:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is. It is an element of breaking the fourth wall. ◄Zahakiel► 18:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fourth-wall isn't the same thing. Besides being directly a stage terminology, it just refers to "asides" to the audience. So, for example, Woody Allen breaks the fourth wall all the time, but rarely does he self-reference the story as a "film," which is what this list is doing. Bulldog123 21:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't say it was the same thing, please read my comments carefully. I said it was an element of breaking the fourth wall. As you admit, this is done. Woody Allen may employ this method "rarely," but that has nothing to do with the fact that it is a noted element of narrative. Also, if you actually read the "fourth wall" article, you will see that it is NOT confined to stage productions, that's just where it appears to have originated. Quoting from the article: "Although it originated in theatre, where conventional three-walled stage sets provide a more literal "fourth wall", the term has been adopted by other media, such as cinema, television, and literature, to more generally refer to the boundary between the fiction and the audience." The Wikipedia article lists video games, books; even comic books are known to employ this technique, and often with reference to the fact that it is a comic book/play/game, not just as an overall "aside," which is what I said regarding an "element." What I have said is accurate, and properly reflected by the article about this subject. P.S. I just glanced at the "History page" of the Overlistification proposal you mentioned above, and it turns out you are both the originator of and major sole (the other editor just removed links) contributor to that proposal... I think it is relevant to this discussion to mention that. Until it gets some support it really should not be advanced as a position in an AfD, particularly when the nominator and the proposer are the same person. ◄Zahakiel► 21:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • For the record: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fiction that breaks the fourth wall (4th nomination). Please comment on the list not on the nominator. As far as I know, Woody Allen doesn't do stage production so "Also, if you actually read the "fourth wall" article, you will see that it is NOT confined to stage productions, that's just where it appears to have originated" is a logical fallacy (discredit the opponent on irrelevant subject matter). As for "Until it gets some support it really should not be advanced as a position in an AfD" WP:AFD is a discussion, and essays, including personal essays (as you may see it), are allowed. However, the policy-based reason for deletion was mentioned about 13 times so we can get off that. List of self-referential songs isn't List of fourth-wall breaks in music. Bulldog123 23:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • If by "policy-based reason" you mean the NOT#DIR thing, I disagree with your application, and I'm not the only one, so I don't think we should "get off" the fact that I think you're advancing an inapplicable policy here. This is a discussion, and I was commenting on the list, not about you... I don't know anything about you except that you wrote the proposal, and I think that this has bearing on your comments here; I do not want readers to get the impression that your position (on the list) is based on anything others have proposed. I didn't make any comments, I just pointed it out. Finally, breaking the fourth wall does have applicability here... regardless of the fact that it is not the name of the list, you yourself admit that the "asides" attending this phenomenon can include self-reference! It is not a "logical fallacy" to point out that your statement about "asides" does not, in fact, eliminate its application to self-referential works. And that is my point; as I said in the first post I made here, there seems to be some anti-list sentiment around Wikipedia these days. That's fine for a lot of what gets removed, but there is a danger of legitimate articles about noted artistic elements being swept out with them. ◄Zahakiel► 00:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Clearly there's nothing that I could say that will convince you this applies to WP:NOT#DIR, but I think the dozens of AfDs such as list of songs by personal name, list of songs with references to ____, the numerous list of songs about ____, and most importantly the greatly similar Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_songs_which_refer_to_other_songs speak for themselves. As an editor mentioned above, this list is not that special. Bulldog123 00:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really? There are 1,180 google scholar hits for "self-reference in song", and I'm sure there are other search terms that might turn up relevant articles. Unfortunately, most of them are pay-per-view articles, so I can't be certain that the contents are relevant, but many of google's extracts look good. JulesH 19:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I searched for that and came up with nothing. Categorizing what songs mention or what their lyrics contain is extremely trival for an encyclopedia.Corpx 01:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You get 1180 results if you search without the "", like so. Of course, the top hits are about "Song Learning in Birds" and "Self-reference in Arithmetic", and I suspect the vast majority of hits are similarly unrelated to "self-reference in song". -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 02:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Seems encyclopedic enough, and as it only violates the "I don't like lists" guideline clean it up, come up with better criteria for inclusion and argue about real content. --Rocksanddirt 16:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it violates WP:NOT#DIR directly. Bulldog123 16:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really? I'd say "loosely associated" is pretty subjective, so your statement is at best arguably true. It has been successfully argued in the past (although I can't find a link to this assertion, so I'm not sure where) that lists that give examples of a kind of thing about which an article could be created are acceptable, whereas lists that wouldn't support such an article generally aren't. I'd argue that the subject of this list would make an acceptable article. JulesH 19:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A verifiable list with clearly defined inclusion criteria. Subjective application of WP:NOT's "loosely associated" and "indiscriminate information" clauses has annoyed me for a long time. I like your argument, JulesH - Self reference and Circular reference are worthy inclusions as notable logical constructs, so examples of such should also be acceptable. Also, can we stop with the straw man examples of "What about List of songs about a ridiculously obscure topic?"?--Canley 03:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is verifiable, but the inclusions criteria really isn't that greatly defined. For example, "Desert Song"... lyrics are:

The desert song, calling,

Its voice enthralling,

Will make you mine.

Now replace the words "Desert Song" with "Star-Spangled Banner." Is the song self-referential now? I could easily see someone saying no, considering it's a song about the Star-Spangled Banner not a song that is the Star-Spangled Banner. So maybe, this is a song about the "desert song" not the desert song. That's just an example, and I don't know if this particular song is the latter. Nonetheless, I don't think being verifiable and having an inclusion criteria should be all that's needed to create a list. If that were the case, then there would be no justification for deleting List of songs about a ridiculously obscure topic. That's why these examples are brought up. WP:NOT#IINFO is there to protect from such lists, and a great way to assess notability is to see if a feature article could be created. Right now, I see no proof self-reference in songwriting would make an article. Bulldog123 07:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the following sources would probably constitute a base from which such an article could be written: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] (probably also with references to origins of self-reference in poetic forms back to the ancient Greeks and Romans [7] [8]). JulesH 16:51, 9 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.