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. Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about California[edit]

List of songs about California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Crufty, unmaintainable mess. Lots of non-notable bands and songs, almost entirely unsourced. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Even with better sourcing, this is too broad a category to make a useful list. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The list has existed for over 15 years, is now quite substantial and gets about 200 views every day. The equivalent category only gets about 1% of that traffic and so the list is not only working in a useful way, it is crushing the opposition. "California über alles!" Andrew🐉(talk) 09:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, but restrict to notable songs. "15 Best Songs About California" (Billboard), "What's Your Favorite California Song?" (New York Times), "27 Songs For A California State Of Mind" (BuzzFeed), etc. satisfy WP:NLIST. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This has already been discussed here and the result was keep. This fresh nomination is not policy-based and clearly doesn't pass WP:BEFORE. Per WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." "All the leaves are brown..." Andrew🐉(talk) 09:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The last nomination was 9 years ago. You are acting like it was two weeks ago. Consensus can change, and surviving an AfD doesn't grant an article lifetime immunity if the issues persist. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per discussion at the previous nomination. The article passes WP:NLIST and while it could use some discussion about restricting the scope (as suggested in the closing of the previous AfD) and better sourcing that's not a reason to delete it. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'll pass on an actual vote (undecided), but valid points were made in both nominations about this list being an unmanageable mess. Just by browsing near the top of the list I found songs that are not about California as the list title implies, but only name-drop the state once or twice in the lyrics (e.g. "Breakfast in America" by Supertramp); others that use the state merely as a metaphor for larger social/political critiques (e.g. "AEnima" by Tool); and others that merely use the state's name for a fictional character (e.g. "Dani California" by Red Hot Chili Peppers). Yes, it has been argued that lots of WP users have viewed this list for many years, but that's not a convincing stat if all they get is a poorly-defined pile of loose listings. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Yes, it's certainly a mess, but it's never too late to fix it. I've decided to remove content not needed in the page, such as songs about Los Angeles, as it already has it's own page, List of songs about Los Angeles, and even created List of songs about San Francisco Bay Area page. I've decided that once I have spare time later today to actually reorganize the article the same way it's organized as the List of songs about Los Angeles. Cheers. JayzBox (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. (I was a reluctant keep at last discussion). ‘I'd be safe and warm/If I was in LA/California dreamin'/On such a winter's day’ is not really about California is it? And that song made the Billboard Top songs about California. So many of the entries are included because WP:SHAREDNAME rather than any WP:5P reason. Without any control on content the whole list becomes WP:TRIVIA and should be deleted.

I will change my vote IF I see some work to remove the cruft, the ridiculous, the unreferenced and the non-notable. Otherwise those that are voting! keep are merely voting to keep article titles, irrespective of content. If the content is rubbish, the number of views are irrelevant (Are people looking at the article to laugh at the reliability of WP?).

It is 9 years since the last nomination, policies and opinions change, hardly disruptive, however, accusing other editors of disruptive editing... --Richhoncho (talk) 11:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. Also per WP:LISTN. Otinflewer (talk) 11:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, pure trivia. The relevant category seems sufficient to cover this topic. Waxworker (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:NOTDUPE says clearly that " the "category camp" should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists ... arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." Andrew🐉(talk) 16:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• ndup also says "These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative". If it cannot be demonstrated that the list is beneficial in ways the category is not, then they're plainly not complementary, and dupe is a perfectly valid argument. Dupe "should be avoided" as a standalone argument, provided without any additional context context; that doesn't mean it's inherently invalid. Avilich (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I've seen a fair number of AfDs for list articles in which someone brings this up. "We can't delete the list because there is a corresponding category" or vice-versa. That argument is pure bureaucracy, even if it is in an official WP policy. The tradition that a list should be kept because there is an equivalent category, or a category should be kept because there is an equivalent list, has saddled WP with a lot of sloppy and pointless categories AND lists. And that's why this one may survive for purely bureaucratic reasons. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The above weak keep voter's suggestion to display only notable entries is already fulfilled by the category, since most of the existing pages there will already comply with the wp:notability guideline. Avilich (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:NLIST per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 01:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Richhoncho reasoning. It's just trivia. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 09:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I was honestly on the fence about this one. I was initially going to vote keep as there are sources that discuss California songs as a group (and that would seemingly satisfy WP:NLIST), but I was convinced by Richhoncho's above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 00:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection and listcruft that's too hard to maintain even with appropriate sourcing. We're better off instead discussing lyrics about California within the individual song articles. The sheer length of time this page has existed isn't a convincing argument to keep (irrelevant to merits of the content itself), and same goes for viewership statistics. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 06:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I already made two comments above but declared myself undecided on a vote. After reading the reasoning in everyone else's votes, I find the "delete" votes backed up by the WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:LISTCRUFT standards to be much more convincing, as opposed to those who think the article should be kept just for bureaucratic reasons involving page stats and category titles. My vote is now to delete. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. A category page will suffice if necessary. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant delete: What this page needs is for someone to be bold and expand this list. Clarityfiend has identified above that this page should, in theory, pass NLIST, but there's been no effort put into in the first place. All of the unsourced/poorly sourced entries should be removed, and this page should be watched heavily if kept. I have archived the page if anyone needs anything in this for future reference (in the event this page is deleted). I will change my vote if vast improvements are made. Sean Stephens (talk) 07:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep is my !vote, make a new start / going to AfD with an aching in my heart / Someone told me there's an encyclopedia / with love in its eyes and freedom in its media. In all seriousness, this is a travesty. There's a lot of songs about California, and people like to listen to them, and people want to read a list of them. The key attribute that entries in the list possess is easily verifiable, the songs and artists are notable; I don't think it would be by any means impossible to make this into a perfectly legitimate list that even the most hard-hearted among us agreed to have encyclopedic value. I will gladly take up the mantle of being the one Don Quixote who !votes "keep" on an almost certainly doomed AfD, because I think it's important to have goofy stuff here. This is what separates us from paper encyclopedias, from stodgy lifeless piles of dead trees, from robotically assembled compendia of factoids generated procedurally from data ingest. It's what gets people interested in learning, it's what makes them decide to stick around and dive deeper. Look, kid -- history can be fun sometimes. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of our own editors didn't get the idea after seeing something whimsical and "unprofessional". But if this doesn't sound compelling to you, at the very least, it has to be said: let's not kid ourselves and think that this list will have a long and prosperous life as a category. Someone is invariably going to decide it's a stupid and non-essential category, possibly citing the consensus of this AfD to do so, and start emptying it out. No tears will be shed (categories aren't even visible on mobile under most circumstances), and the world will move on. I am still not clear on what encyclopedic purpose it serves to do this, but it will probably happen, since it is already happening to the list: I suppose there will simply be one iota less of fun in the sum of all human knowledge. All the leaves are brown, indeed! jp×g 04:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I find the keep rationales above, although less numerous, to be more compelling. Clarityfiend presented clear evidence that the topic of songs about California has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, thus meeting WP:LISTN, therefore keep. The primary deletion rationale, that the list is prone to accruing cruft, is uncompelling, as deletion is not cleanup; we can always fight cruft by removing it. I find the delete rationale that the list is WP:SHAREDNAME to be uncompelling, as this is List of songs about California, not List of songs with California in the title, and indeed plenty of entries don't mention California in their title. I also find the argument that the category is sufficient uncompelling, since WP:NOTDUPE is a well-established guideline, and a list page can provide benefits to readers (such as including band names) that our current category system cannot. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 07:17, 3 June 2021 (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.