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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Doc (?) 23:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs whose title includes a phone number[edit]

See Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Lists of songs.

Utterly trivial list.

• Speedy delete as phonecruft with no potential of passing the stub line. --SuperDude 02:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sadly not a Speedy this List of Songs Cruft is getting dumber and dumber whats next List of songs that does not exist or List of songs that put people to sleep --JAranda | yeah 03:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The latter list would be very long —Wahoofive (talk) 04:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a reductio ad absurdum that is flawed because it is based upon a false analogy. A list of songs that put people to sleep has a problem of being an original research magnet, in that it tempts people to add songs to the list that put xem xemselves to sleep. This article does not have such a problem. There are no subjective criteria inherent in whether or not a song title contains a telephone number. Uncle G 12:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Beechwood-four-five-seven-eight-nine...you can go ahead and just delete any ol' time. --FuriousFreddy 03:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as listcruft. --Blackcap | talk 06:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Invaluable. Where else would I find a list of songs with phone numbers in their title, were I to have a need to research this subject, but Wikipedia? --Centauri 06:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would you need to research such a thing to begin with? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did research such a thing two years ago when I did a paper on communication systems in pop culture. If only this had existed then... --Jacquelyn Marie 16:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unencyclopedic. Xoloz 09:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Maybe, if someone was really bored, they could create a category for this. The Land 09:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, we shouldn't have lists for everything. Punkmorten 12:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• The list's selection criteria are neither excessively narrow nor excessively broad. The list does not contain an inherent bias, and is not by its nature an original research magnet as some other lists are. Yes, this is slanted towards people who come to Wikipedia looking for answers to trivia quiz questions. But so are the thirty-five articles listed at Template:Lists of US Presidents and Vice Presidents. And it is conceivable that a person who knew of one song whose title includes a telephone number would want to know whether there were others. Keep. Uncle G 12:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't like the way the list is done but I could imagine being bored enough on a cold and wet day to think "hmm.. which other songs have telephone numbers in". I don't know that that makes it a good article. Maybe I just need more of a life? Marcus22 13:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it wouldn't have been created and maintained if it wasn't of interest. - SimonP 13:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Trivia, not encyclopedic. There is no connection in these songs apart from the use of phone numbers. A list of songs that were performed at the roriginal Live Aid concert, or have won Academy Awards is notable. This isn't. Average Earthman 14:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Uncle G. Pburka 15:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Uncle G. Crypticfirefly 16:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Uncle G -- but I would like a clean up. --Jacquelyn Marie 16:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, agree with Centauri -- although... maybe not invaluable. Where else but wikipedia could you find someone who has put together such a list for you? even if most people will laugh. gren グレン 20:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is an encyclopædia, not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Quale 04:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Uncle G. --Apyule 06:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please jacquelyn marie really makes a strong reason for including this list here so please do not erase this Yuckfoo 19:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Uncle G. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-10-5 T 00:38:00 Z
• Keep, not necessarily on Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 23:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I was all set to vote delete and then Jacquelyn Marie comes along with an excellent rationale to hang onto this. Denni☯ 01:57, 12 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.