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 keep. Cleanup to include only songs which have been specifically written to talk about the city ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about cities[edit]

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

Far too loose a criterion for inclusion. People sing about towns all the time. Also, a song can have a city in the title but not really be about it (for instance, "Dallas" by Alan Jackson is actually about a woman named Dallas, and only mentions the town in passing). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup but don't delete - Songs with articles about cities, specifically Cities by Talking Heads are missing and only hits are really named. Maybe the article should only contain songs that are about the city instead of just ones that mention them. Also all songs about cities should be included, not just hits. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 19:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing defining nor encyclopedic about about a list of songs which mentions animals, booze or cities. Wichita Lineman is NOT about Wichita (think about it!!!) and Hong Kong Garden is about a chinese restaurant (says so in this list), yet that's two of the entries here. WP:AFG denies me the chance to say what I really think about this kind of list. But on the plus side at least it's not a category. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS. As a list, this is no more notable than Lists of songs with personal names. I can't see how WP:NLIST can be used to support a keep as it uses the words "discussed as a group." I can't find where songs about cities has been discussed... published perhaps, but that is not discussion but a very clever publisher pitching to the shallower end of the reading public. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic satisfies WP:LISTN being covered in sources such as That Old-time Rock & Roll and The Green Book of Songs by Subject. There are numerous famous examples such as Chicago (That Toddlin' Town) and we even have a list just for that single city: List of songs about Chicago and other cities too, such as List of songs about Paris. We obviously need a master list to bring together all this notable material. Warden (talk) 14:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Delete. As the nom points out, the fact that a song mentions a city doesn't mean that the song is about the city. The way we know a song is about a city is to find reliable sources that say it is -- not by Wikipedia editors analyzing the lyrics themselves. This article lists almost 400 songs (not even counting the songs on separate lists for individual cities). Yet no more than five of them have sources cited in order to ascertain that the song really is about that city. I think this is an interesting topic, but I can't recommend a "keep" unless it looks like this article is going to be limited to songs identified by reliable sources as being about particular cities. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The whole thing belongs someplace else, not WP. An encyclopedia is supposed to be about facts, not musings on connections between one thing and another. Which is fun and perhaps productive but not "encyclopedic." (Is that word even used outside of WP?) You might as well have a list of "Sad songs" or "Rebellious songs" or whatever you want. Borock (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm making this a "delete" recommendation because the improvements to this article during the AfD have not addressed my concern that most of the songs are not cited to reliable sources which state that the song is indeed about the city. For example, "The Heart of Rock & Roll" is listed as being a song about Cleveland, when in fact the song mentions 14 different cities, of which Cleveland is the 13th. Maybe there should be an article titled Songs about cities which could be based on this article's lead section, but this list is too uncited to keep. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are not reliable sources saying the songs are about the cities. "By the Time I Get to Phoenix" is certainly not. Borock (talk) 06:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a source which explicitly discusses the association of songs with cities and gives "By the Time I Get to Phoenix" as an example. It took me all of 30 seconds to find this example and so you are certainly wrong in suggesting that reliable sources do not exist. You just haven't looked, have you? Warden (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have looked and I haven't seen any approaching encyclopedic. The Songwriter's Ideas Book, which you linked, says "a city, a state, a foreign place" in your song title is a good idea, and you synthesise this to mean that Lists of songs about cities is OK? This is your validation of notable? This is the discussion WP:NLIST requires? You are joking, aren't you? What exactly does A Foggy Day (In London Town) and London Calling have in common other than they contain the same place name? What about List of ideas for good song titles. Oops. I've spilt the beans. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal opinion of particular cases is irrelevant. If professional authors and publishers have made this connection then we're good. See WP:UNENCYC. Warden (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not personal opinion and to claim so when I have stated which policies and guidelines support is disparagement and offensive. I have quoted WP Policy and Guidelines, including precedent. The songwriters book would also say use a name in your title, but Lists of songs with personal names has already been deleted as non-notable and equates precisely with this list. WP:LISTN does NOT say published, it says "discussed as group or set." These are the reasons you say "keep." Nobody has managed to answer my short but pertinent question, " At what point does mentioning a place name in a song become validation for an encyclopedic list?" - maybe I can think it through and change my view and support changes in policy, guidelines and precedent. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of songs with personal names is a stale example because it's six years old. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about bicycles for a more recent example which resulted in Keep. Warden (talk) 13:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The bicycles list was kept because the introduction of bicycles had a social importance reflected in the songs of the period. Not relevant for this discussion. List of songs about Rainbows (more current than bikes, even) and List of songs with personal names: A are much more appropriate. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per Richhoncho. We are also having enough trouble with WP maintenance without these listcrufty lists. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic satisfies WP:LISTN. The only problem I see is with referencing. Doctorhawkes (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some places have so many songs about them they have their own articles. I count 28 listed here, such as List of songs about Melbourne, and List of songs about Jerusalem. Just search for the words "list of songs about" and you can find them all. I'm sure all these places have some coverage about some of the songs about them. Anyway, Warden found some books that cover the topic. The number of blue links to the notable songs and the other list articles makes it a valid list article also. Dream Focus 20:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Links? Very few blue links to songs in the Melbourne list (quite a few to places in Melbourne and no guarantees that we are not referring to some other Melbourne, physical or otherwise), which makes it an editorial catatrophe. At what point does mentioning a place name in a song become validation for an encyclopedic list? It's trivia, pure and simple, and no editor has even come close to proving otherwise. Can you do better? --Richhoncho (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is surprising. Anyway, we're talking about this list now. There are blue links to actual songs, notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles, in this list, plus a link to 28 other similar list in it. Aids in navigation, so meets the requirements for a list article. See WP:LIST. Dream Focus 20:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I ask again, "At what point does mentioning a place name in a song become validation for an encyclopedic list? Not quite playing the game if you mention the Melbourne list as a validation for this article and then say "anyway, we're are talking about this list now." --Richhoncho (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant links to other Wikipedia articles, makes the list useful. There are thousands of list articles like this one, always have been, and always will be. And the same arguments usually happen in these things. A bunch of people say "I don't like it", Warden finds some book references showing its a notable topic, and it ends in keep. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United states presidents with facial hair during their tenure for a stunning example of that happening. Dream Focus 23:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, neither you nor Warden have been able to go beyond WP:LIST which says there has to be a discussion and when that fails you say "navigation," so for a third time, I ask you, "At what point does mentioning a place name in a song become validation for an encyclopedic list?" No more ducking and diving, other stuff exists and I cannot see the relevance of beards - shaved or otherwise.--Richhoncho (talk) 23:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there is some question or dispute about a particular entry then we refer to reliable sources to resolve the issue. Warden (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, AfD Lists of songs with personal names above, I think it is far more relevant than, say, List of Presidents of the United States with facial hair. Take care. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORUMSHOP, or less politely, WP:CANVASSING has been going on. User:Colonel Warden, posted a keep message here on 14:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC), he then posted a notice at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron - Rescue list on 19:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC) and at 20:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC) (i.e. within 20 minutes, User:Dream Focus had posted a keep notice too. If this was a one-off I could let it pass, but it is not, as can been seen by Editor Interaction Analyzer.[reply]

I note that the code of coduct at the Rescue List states, The project is not about casting !votes, nor about vote-stacking. (my bold). This is patently not so, as neither contributor has made any improvement to the article whatsover, but have merely voted and encouraged others who think similarly to come and cast a !vote.

Please note I have seen this on a couple of other AfDs, and including other overt members of the task force. I have no problem with people wanting to improve and save articles, there is a benefit to WP to do that, but to let it knowingly be used for other purposes and save articles without improvement defeats the whole objective of the rescue squadron.

Now I am aware of this going on I shall be watching.--Richhoncho (talk) 13:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its just like any other Wikiproject, anyone allowed to add it to the AFD list. Its also on the Wikiproject lists for list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions and list of Lists-related deletion discussions. It is not unusual for people who frequent these list to be seen participating in the same AFDs. Please discuss this elsewhere and don't start a massively long debate here, we having plenty of those already elsewhere you can read through. Dream Focus 15:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the analyser had said only music or list-related articles then you would have a point, it doesn't so not much more to said - whoever closes this should take note. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the pattern of interaction between user:TenPoundHammer and user:Richhoncho. They show up together at numerous deletion discussion such as the similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about California, which was nevertheless Keep. They hold discussions about their opposition to such topics and so their activity seems to be a joint effort. See also WP:POT. Warden (talk) 13:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the list and on the first two items Tenpound and I had opposing views. We show up together on music-related discussions only, whereas you and Dream Focus show up together at anything listed at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron - Rescue list which is why I accuse you and Dream Focus of WP:FORUMSHOP. Although Tenpound and I generally share the same opinion about random lists based around a single word/words and have exchanged comments regarding their futility, we have kept to the spirit of WP and never conspired in an AfD. Now go and read and adhere to the guidelines you have signed up for at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron - Rescue list. Thankyou. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As numerous music professionals admit, including even the nominator, cities are a popular topic for songs. Per the recently improved lede, good Nick Coleman has even suggested that cities are pop's 2nd most favored topic after Love.

As the Colonel suggests, there are abundant sources covering songs about cities as a group. Dozens of such sources are cited in the excellent Decline, Renewal and the City in Popular Music Culture by Sara Cohen. I concede the point that its challenging to make this list fully comprehensive and exact, but due to the topic's massive notability, it would be unencyclopedic not to have an entry. The rescue squad have improved the lede so it flags to the reader that the list may not be entirely complete.

Those who have contributed to the article, or to defending it in this discussion, are to be congratulated. A most useful resource for academics, music pros and the general public. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Coleman is quoted as saying that "pop is better on cities than on anything else, apart from love". He didn't say it was the second-most common topic -- surely there are more pop songs about sex or dancing than about cities. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but strength/narrow inclusion requirements. "Songs about cities" mean that the song was specifically written to talk about the city itself, and to have sources to justify that was the case. Just being named in the song, or having the city name as the title, isn't sufficient (eg Weird Al's "Albuquerque" is not about the city at all). This might significantly cut down on the list, but that's the only way needed to keep this list, otherwise it is just about songs that happen to mention a city which is trivial. --MASEM (t) 16:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Anyone claiming that "this doesn't pass WP:LISTN should be aware that LISTN explicitly says "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists" (such as "songs about cities"). This means that having sources covering the group is enough to establish notability, but not having them doesn't establish a lack thereof. In that case, a local consensus is required to decide whether there's notability or not. Diego (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but cleanup to include just the songs that really have a city as main topic of their lyrics, as pointed above by many users. Cavarrone (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2013 (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.