Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about masturbation (5th nomination)

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, with no prejudice towards userfying. If anyone plans to userfy, please notify me. —Kurykh 01:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I closed the DRV for this article as relist. My opinion is weak delete, considering that this is a trivia list and per precedent. Sr13 07:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I was the original editor who raised the subject of this Afd on AN/I. There were obvious concerns that although the Afd had (apparantly) been listed for 11 days, the Afd was still stuck with no consensus. This was actually the 6th nomination of the article, over the last few years the afds had been raised non standard ways that made it confusing ( eg 2nd nomination and Second Nomination).

The Afd appears to have undergone five days on 9th July when it was renamed from 3rd nomination to 4th nomination [see diif] by Zenohockey who didn't amend the Afd day log to take note of the change.

My questions are :-

• • If the Afd had have closed on the due date, would it have been deleted?
  • Would the fact that some editors were unaware that this was the 6th 4th Afd and not the 3rd Afd have swayed them one way or another?

Mike33 - t@lk 07:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Afd is now the 7th nomination Mike33 - t@lk 07:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, this is the 5th nomination. The two italicized links are redirects and do not actually contain debates. --Coredesat 08:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks text amended Mike33 - t@lk 08:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia, nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information. Also, there are zero reliable sources aside from the actual lyrics, which constitutes original research, not to mention that the actual subjects of some of these songs are unverifiable. --Coredesat 08:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just re-reading the essay on Listcruft, I googled references to masturbation and song in Wikipedia [Google minus User pages] and there does appear to be a popular theme albeit one that doesn't have a primary article. I think a google scholar search might pull up some interesting related articles [[1]], [[2]], [etc.] . If Wikipedia is an educational tool and not just an indiscriminate compendium of "stuff on the web", I think that a scholarly article could be produced from such a list and a lot of delving into other papers which touch upon the subject. Mike33 - t@lk 08:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the phrase "as deliberately intended by their lyricists" shows that we can find reliable sources for all entries which satisfy the conditions for inclusion in the list. The lack of these sources at the moment does not make the subject unencyclopaedic. Remember Wikipedia is a work in progress so, rather than delete the list, we should be trying to find sources that verify the validity of each entry's inclusion. D4g0thur 08:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources are important, as they show verifiability. The idea of sources possibly existing is not the same as having them now; all of this material should be sourced as it is added, or it is unverified OR. "As deliberately intended by their lyricists" is a claim that is not backed up by sound evidence, and cases to the contrary could be made for any of the songs there. --Coredesat 17:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, trivia, not encyclopedic, and given the sheer number of euphemisms for masturbation, highly impractical. >Radiant< 10:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per above. It goes against the rules stated here. Lradrama 10:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Using the Rationale from WP:ATS

_{"Lists of miscellaneous information can be useful for developing a new article, as it sets a low bar for novice contributors to add information without having to keep in mind article organization or presentation — they can just add a new fact to the list. However, as articles grow, these lists become increasingly disorganized and difficult to read. A better way to organize an article is to provide a logical grouping and ordering of facts that gives an integrated presentation, providing context and smooth transitions."}

That is no way indicative that this would be included in such a definition. We have two clear factors in the title of the list - "Masturbation" and "songs" - join those together and we have the begining of a definative list. I agree remove all the nonsense WP:OR, slim the list to clearly recognised references and leave it open so that an article can be written about the place of masturbation in music. Apparantly, John Donne was writing about it too. Mike33 - t@lk 12:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete trivial, and not even consistently formatted. Darrenhusted 12:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Poor formatting has no bearing on the encyclopaedic value of an article. D4g0thur 12:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  And AFD still isn't cleanup. In addition, we've just started using a promising new tag that calls attention to issues needing wider exposure or more manpower. In the circumstances, I don't see how its cleanliness is relevant; It'll be done before the deadline, no worries. :P --Kizor 13:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I am voting to keep on the principal that it is against good faith to repeatedly nominate an article for WP:AFD until you get lucky enough to have the right set of respondents to delete it. This is just taking another stab at the same apple and it is wrong to do. I nearly voted to delete on the basis that the list is a shambles without "Relax" by Frankie Goes To Hollywood on it, but I have added that now. Irishjp 12:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not a reason to keep an article. The article was nominated again because it was not properly listed last time. See the DRV linked in the nomination. --Coredesat 17:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Afd isn't a vote, it is based on developing a consensus, five days of debate. There are lots of reasons why Afds are raised again and again, in the same way that articles are dropped from WP:GA and WP:FA, it certainly isnot a reason to oppose deletion. Mike33 - t@lk 12:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response There is no more of a case for deletion here than in any other unsuccessful Afd. You seen to have a lot to say on the topic and appear to have a keen interest in having it removed. You do not appear to be happy with just giving your opinion and be done with it, you have to comment on everyones reponses, and from this I can only assume you have something other than an objective opinion on this and your attempts to remove are in bad faith. Perhaps you were caught at it while you were younger? Irishjp 15:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irishjp, please refrain from making personal attacks; it is counter-productive. D4g0thur 15:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TRIVIA and per this being useless listcruft. As a side note, I notice that the consensus was Delete after the 4th nomination. So why is the article still here? I cannot find any links to a Deletion Review. —gorgan_almighty
  • Comment The Deletion review is listed in the opening statement by the Afd mover but see Deletion Review. Mike33 - t@lk 14:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as trivia and (in many cases) original research ➥the Epopt 15:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as trivial per above. Listing songs by (apparent) subject matter fails WP:NOT. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to remind you that the list is not based on apparent subject matter but on a subject "as deliberately intended by their lyricists" (as stated in the list's lead). D4g0thur 16:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The list has not got a single reference to back this statement up. To say that masturbation was "deliberately intended by their lyricists" is purely speculative/interprative without supportive evidence. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Just because the list is not currently referenced properly, doesn't mean that it can't be or won't be referenced properly. If this survives, I suggest we remove all entries and then slowly add any that can be sourced like "Turning Japanese" [3] or "I Touch Myself" [4]. D4g0thur 03:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Whack it off... er, Strong delete, not at all referenced. Pure trivia. Listcruft. Original research. Need I say more? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional delete: as I said at the DRV, this is a topic that may have been the subject of scholarly study. If so, and if that fact can be documented with proper references, then I would support keeping the list (but limiting it to properly documented entries). Otherwise, it's trivia, and should be deleted. Note that I'm not just asking for references on the individual entries—I'm asking for documentation that the topic itself does not constitute original research. Xtifr _tälk 20:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• TPH, ya sicko... Delete as original research with no references to back it up. Many of the songs listed seem to have only tangential references to the alleged subject. Looks like trivial coverage to me. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a trivial intersection not worthy of a list (or category) absent sources discussing the topic in depth (rather than just mentioning it). Since there are niether sourcxes listed in the article nor uncited analytic text it should be deleted as an unnecessary and unhelpful list (i.e. listcruft). Eluchil404 21:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Purely from my Idealist postion because there is so much talk of trivia and listcruft - but - "Does one thing exist without the other?" If this list ceases to exist do references to masturbation in other articles about artists/songs cease to exist [Wikipedia pages about hand jobs in song google search]? Trivia is disjointed, in Wikipedia there are 80 clearly defined accepted referneces in the articles to masturbation. Trivia is in episode 12 series 3 of Malcolm in the middle reece ate a Bob Jones Pie. (well maybe not that bad).

I certainly don't like lists, more often than not they are a hinderence to the information I want to find. With google we can wikisearch without the b*llsh*t. There is no policy about WP:LC, and this doesn't fit into it even. Idealism says that if the subject exists in wikipedia (not just to fill in red links) then the subject exists as a whole. Mike33 - t@lk 21:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Having to be in 5 nominations just to get your way kinda says something. Give up. -^Violask8₁₉₇₆ 21:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is not a valid argument in AfD. Resolute 02:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • as opposed to "delete per nom"? At least I'm showing flavor. I say keep, but rename to "List of Songs referencing Masturbation". You can't assume that the song is ABOUT in, but you can show that it REFERENCES it. -^Violask8₁₉₇₆ 15:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on comments earlier & in the Deletion Review, the criterion (& perhaps title) should be songs primarily about masturbation. Lists of songs on topics are encyclopedic, as a part of the apparatus for organizing the articles.

to remove an article, you need to win one AfD out of 5--or however many it may take to win one. To keep it, you need 5 out of 5. The provision for repeated AfD biases WP process towards deletion. The equivalent of asking the other parent is asking repeatedly until the parent gives in rather than maintain the originaly correct position.DGG (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I still think categorizing songs by their meanings is trivia per WP:FIVE - Also, it is WP:OR to categorize songs on their meanings Corpx 02:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my argument in the last AfD. pointless trivia, and having a song mention masturbation =/= being about masturbation. Resolute 02:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Very well kept and done. Verifiably accurate and reasonably complete. After the first Keep AfD, why do we need the rest?!? This list has only gotten better since the first AfD. Please let this one be the last one, so we can get back to writing content. Lentower 03:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; a completely unreferenced and trivial list. Most listings are there because of original research by editors based on their own interpretations of the lyrics from what songs are listed.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Lentower has begun a canvassing of editors to view this AFD. Any comments after this would have to be taken into consideration as users that he had personally contacted to view this page.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep aside from being nominated for the 5th damn time for deletion, I don't see anything wrong with that song list.  Grue  03:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete trivia. `'Míkka 03:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete On the merits this is WP:OR. On principal see my 4th AFD vote to keep.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 04:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, irrelevant classification. --Eyrian 04:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep look, as long as each song in the list is sourced, there is no problem with the content. Deleting this would be mostly on the grounds of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem is, there are exactly zero sources. Also, of all of the nominations, it appears that only the first AfD actually ended as a keep, and judging by the !votes, and the WP:ILIKEIT keep arguments, that should have been a no consensus or possibly a delete. The other four AfD's ended in three no consensus votes, and finally a delete that was overturned on a technicality. The nomination history for this article shows there has never been a consensus to keep. Resolute 04:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Where else would one go to find this sort of data except WP? It's why we exist. --Gene_poole 04:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOT#IINFO—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's nothing indiscriminate about it. In fact it's about as discriminating as it's possible to get. --Gene_poole 07:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I presume no one really doubts that these songs do, indeed, at least mention masturbation, even if they aren't strictly "about" them. So, we have an encyclopedic topic (songs about/that mention masturbation), verifiable and verified information, and a clear, readable article. Some context (e.g., a narrative history of masturbation in music) would be good, but it's not required. I'm sorry if I was supposed to do something else in addition to renaming the previous AfD, but it's time to face facts: among the previous four (!) AfDs, it is clear that at least a sizable portion of the WP community wants this article to stay. Unlike Resolute, I believe the onus is on those who would delete an article as thorough (not to mention, let's face it, downright interesting) as this one to convince everyone that it should be deleted, not the other way around. A consensus to do this has not been established. --zenohockey 05:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete completely trivial classification of music. Hell I even doubt some of them. Turning Japanese by The Vapors, is rumoured to be about masturbation, but I have neever seen any confirmation. That therefore is original research. Add that to the complete lack of references, and you have an article in a pretty poor state on a very insignificant subject. Viridae^Talk 08:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confirmation: [5]. Your opinion on the subject's significance is irrelevant; I don't think that List of New York City parks is very interesting or significant - I can't really see an alien race that finds the ruins of our civilization saying "I wonder what the parks in New York city were..." - but obviously, some people do. D4g0thur 09:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't consider that to be confirmation, considering it isnt referenced to anything either. Viridae^Talk 09:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Furthermore, my opinion on the subjects relevance IS relevant. Shall I translate it into a language you might understand: Very few of these song are notable for their mention of masturbation, and as such do not warrant a list. Viridae^Talk 09:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "I Touch Myself", "Turning Japanese" and "Relax" are all notable (if not entirely then partially) because of this. Just to name a few off the top of my head. D4g0thur 09:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The vast majority aren't. And you are yet to provide any strong evidence that Turning Japanese is indeed about that subject. I believe the band has never commented... Viridae^Talk 09:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually it turns out your right about "Turning Japanese" - although the song is famous for being about masturbation it is actually just about being in love (see [6] for an interveiw with the band confirming this). That still doesn't cross off "I Touch Myself" and, apparently "Touch of My Hand" [7]. D4g0thur 09:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Wikipedia is the new Book of Lists. Cheers! bd2412 T 11:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

  Could you give a reason why it should be kept? Neil ╦ 08:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Despite comments about listcruft, Wikipedia is a repository of countless lists that subjectively could be condemned as worthless. Can't help thinking that this particular list attracts (repeated) negative attention because of its subject matter, while a similar list of (oh, I dunno) songs about rabbits might be overlooked entirely. The fact that the material is largely unsourced is an argument for improvement, not deletion. If we deleted all unsourced articles and lists we'd overnight demolish a massive chunk of the Encyclopedia... the purpose is to improve articles from unsourced stubs to FAs. They all start somewhere... and it's rarely a very good place. --Dweller 12:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Neil ╦ 12:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a minor part of the above point the most important bit (in my eyes) is "The fact that the material is largely unsourced is an argument for improvement, not deletion. If we deleted all unsourced articles and lists we'd overnight demolish a massive chunk of the Encyclopedia... the purpose is to improve articles from unsourced stubs to FAs. They all start somewhere... and it's rarely a very good place." Which cannot be brushed away with "WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS". D4g0thur 13:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  If you can source it, then source it. The fact the article has managed to survive four AFDs, each one with the promise "I'm sourcing it / It's being worked on", yet the article remains unsourced original research, does not predispose me to believe it can be sourced. There is a difference between unsourced-but-could-be-sourced and unsourced-and-could-not-be-sourced. Neil ╦ 08:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no original research thanks. Fails WP:SYNTH. Many of the songs are not actually about masturbation, for example, "Blister in the Sun" is explicitly not it (read its article). Also WP:TRIVIA, WP:NOT. Neil ╦ 12:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Could be considered listcruft by some, but this has been through AfD 4 times and there appears to have been no consensus in previous AFDs. There are sources out there that verify that such a list seems to be in popular culture: see Cracked.com's list as an example, or

Nadamucho's similar article.Even Digg has got in on the act, discussing it here. It seems that there are sources out there, whether they meet reliable sourcing criteria is another matter. However, the above links are verifiable, so it could be seen as encyclopedic. In the 3rd AFD, Aecis stated it should be kept but referenced, and here I have done just that - I have sourced information, and referenced it. If you wish to discuss the sources go to the talk page, that might not be a bad idea. Either way, this does seem to be the source of controversy here on Wikipedia, and it seems this may become another No consensus AfD. Please read my arguments and consider them. I rest my case. Apologies for the length of this. Thanks, --SunStar Net ^talk 13:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In case anyone was interested, I've begun to create a referenced version of this (only including verifiable entries) here. If this version were up for deletion, would you still vote the same? It contains no WP:OR and is completely verified. D4g0thur 13:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for all the reasons given in the nomination rationale last time. Bulldog123 13:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing admin User:Lentower seems to have been canvassing keepers (See User_talk:Ryulong#Canvassing) from previous AfDs. See User talk:Lentower#Canvassing. [8]

[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] Bulldog123 14:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Notifying an editor who has shown past interest in an article is not canvassing, it is common courtesy. Although if he was only notifying those who voted keep, then it is not in good faith. D4g0thur 14:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I wrote pretty clearly he was canvassing keepers, which usually is synonymous with "editors who have shown a past interest in an article" anyway. If he was just contacting all past participants in the 4th nomination, then ok. This isn't that. Half of these people didn't even participate. Bulldog123 15:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I do not see how this information is trivial. Puerile perhaps, but that doesn't make it trivial. The information is subject to the same verifiability criteria as any other article or list on Wikipedia. This should be ground for improvement by referencing, not for outright deletion. The list makes it clear that masturbation is an important theme in songs. In listing such songs, the list provides both content and context. One "list of songs about..." would be trivial, but they have to be seen in conjunction. Perhaps indeed those lists should use some standard format, to be used in future lists. These are all suggestions for improvement. That is what this article may need. But there is no ground for outright deletion. Aecis^Brievenbus 14:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I was notified of this AFD by Lentower. I don't know if (s)he contacted all the participants of previous AFDs of this list, or just the keep !voters. If the latter is the case, (s)he should get a slap on the wrist for canvassing. But that shouldn't change the outcome of the discussion. AFDs are not votes, so shouldn't be a simple headcount anyway. No matter how many keep/delete !voters there are, if their arguments are void, it is within admin discretion to close the article against consensus. I want to point out that I did !vote to keep the list in the previous AFD, and that I am to some extent responsible for the current layout (so I accept part of the responsibility for the lack of referencing). Aecis^Brievenbus 14:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note the article still contains no secondary sources. This is inappropriate for any Wikipedia article; they cannot be constructed solely from primary source material. --Eyrian 14:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See here for my attempt to rectify this problem. If the only problem with the article is a lack of references and WP:OR then it can be solved - deletion is only for article's whose subject is inherently unecyclopaedic. D4g0thur 14:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the assertion "deletion is only for article's whose subject is inherently unecyclopaedic" is incorrect. Secondly, I still maintain that this article is an irrelevant classification. This is only compounded (and reinforced) by the fact that there are no real sources. Yes, you've listed a few, but they're hardly reliable. For instance, Cracked is a magazine devoted to satire. Then there's a tripod homepage. --Eyrian 14:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of good sourcing is not a reason for deletion, as specified here Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Editing. It's not as if it's impossible for many/most of these songs to be referenced using RS. Your argument that it's an irrelevant classification is stronger, but subjective. If you were writing an essay on sex in popular culture, it would certainly be relevant, useful and (when improved) encyclopedic. --Dweller 14:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of sourcing most certainly can be a reason for deletion, depending on whether the content can be verified "Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed". That is most certainly true for the vast majority of the content in this article. It very well justifies deletion. If desired, it could be recreated, sourced to reliable works from the beginning. From what I've seen, that's not very likely. Further, I doubt that a list of unverified/unverifiable assertions that random songs might contain a reference to masturbation would be particularly useful for anything. Even if Wikipedia's purpose were to be useful. --Eyrian 14:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too would refute the argument that a lack of good sourcing is not a reason for deletion. As the link pointed out states, if an article can be improved through editing as opposed to deletion it should be - but that's a big if. The fact that this article has undergone multiple AfD's over a period of two years and still does not have any reliable sourcing, if anything, bolsters the argument about lack of sources. I fail to see how anyone can argue "this list can be sourced" when two years and several discussions of opportunity have resulted in a big zero in terms of sources. In any case WP:V tells us the burden of proof when it comes to sources is on those who add the material, not those who challenge it - those who argue this has sources have had ample time to refute the challenge and have not done so. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The simple fact is that other editors are showing that the article can be sourced. I really hope that the concerted efforts to have this deleted aren't prompted by prurience. --Dweller 17:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, they have not. The revised article that I saw had about 5 entries, mostly unreliably sourced. If 99% of the content is unverifiable, the article should be deleted, and gradually rebuilt. The lifetime of this cruft-driven monstrosity should be at an end. --Eyrian 17:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eyrian, you said "The lifetime of this cruft-driven monstrosity should be at an end." It sounds to me like you are on a personal crusade or vendetta against this article. That aside, the sources in that article are not unreliable just because you disagree with them. D4g0thur 17:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not calling them unreliable because I disagree with them; I'm claiming they're unreliable because they're unreliable. Do you honestly see no problems with using a satire magazine as a source? Regarding a personal crusade, I came upon this article on this AfD, and I think it should be deleted because of its obvious faults. --Eyrian 17:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find the sources used to be prefectly acceptable. Just because a magazine publishes satire does not prevent it from publishing fact as well. D4g0thur 17:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Satire magazines are the pioneers of phony articles. Yes, they could conceivably publish something that's true, but they cannot be considered reliable. Stores are routinely made as a meta-joke, or to satirize the notion of news. It simply cannot be considered a factual source. --Eyrian 17:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A satirical magazine can be considered a reliable source. Further, you have not raised any concerns with any of the other sources. D4g0thur 02:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Proposal: There seems to be a consensus towards deletion in this AFD. Some of the delete votes are based on a lack of referencing in, and hence verifiability of, this list. I therefore suggest moving this list into the userspace of D4g0thur (talk · contribs), to give him/her a chance to improve the list. Any thoughts? Aecis^Brievenbus 15:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I still maintain that it's a largely irrelevant classification. What makes a song "about" something, and not something else, is highly subjective. Is mentioning it enough? Half the verses? It's just not encyclopedic. --Eyrian 15:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Exactly. Spend 5 months *improving* (?) this list, it still doesn't change the fact that it isn't a notable list per WP:FIVE and WP:NOT. It is the inverse of the argument "Keep it because it is so well sourced!" Bulldog123 15:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I will continue to maintain it on a subpage of my userpage as I beleive it has encyclopaedic value but needs tender love and care. Any editor who wants to help is more than welcome. If and when I/we get it to a stage where it seems "good enough", I/we will put it back in the article space - this might take a while though. D4g0thur 16:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Yes, it is listcruft. Yes, it is largely useless. Yes, it is trivial. But Wikipedia is not paper. I feel that any and all of these lists, as long as they are not indiscriminate and properly sourced, have a place in Wikipedia. This list is not indiscriminate because it only lists songs that are *explicitly* about masturbation. This is list verifiable, because anyone can look up the lyrics. All in all, I fail to see how this encyclopaedia improves by deleting this list. Why spend time deleting well-written content? SalaSkan 16:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Invalid claim of verifiability. "The thermoelectric effect doesn't need sources because anyone can go look at a wire and see that it works for themselves." Articles should not be constructed completely from primary sources. --Eyrian 16:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Then how would you verify such a thing? If the list says "this song contains the lyrics: "I been caught wankin'" and thus it is about masturbation", then how could that possibly be untrue? SalaSkan 17:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Because it could be a metaphor. They occasionally pop up in art. --Eyrian 17:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Come on, rereading that you don't really think it adequately answers User:Salaskan's question do you? Please don't get worked up over this too much - after all, its only Wikipedia, its not real life. D4g0thur 17:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Why wouldn't it? Art frequently contains things that mean something else. Just because the singer says a word, doesn't mean they're referring to the actual act of masturbation. Further, please note that everything that I think and do is part of my real life. --Eyrian 18:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact that it *could* theoretically be a metaphor doesn't make this list unverifiable, in my opinion. If a certain song contains the line "I been caught wankin'" we can safely assume that it is about masturbation. That is no reason to delete the list. SalaSkan 20:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Your safe assumption is blatant OR, and quite unacceptable. Please read WP:OR to understand why. --Eyrian 20:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Assuming something that is obviously true is not OR. Saying that it is OR is blatant WikiLawyering. D4g0thur 02:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OR is when an editor claims that something is intended one way without a source, in a nut shell. Claiming a lyric, despite obvious intentions to what it means, when you have no reliable sources as to what the correct meaning is, is OR. Don't wikilawyer when you obviously can't. — Moe ε 03:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, thus, this is not OR. You have proved my point for me. D4g0thur 08:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it is OR, it lacks reliable sources. No sources = Original research, period. This page also has copyrighted lyrics on it. Unless you can actually provide a policy that says you can commit copyright infrigement.. — Moe ε 19:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright warrior shall we go on a patrol removing every quotation? or are song lyrics a special kind of copyright? Do you have any NEW POLICY which says that lyrics and book quotations are different? wow I'll have a real party deleting when I see this policy Mike33 - t@lk 20:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I hope everyone realizes WP:NOT#PAPER refers to style not content. Stop mis-using this. Bulldog123 05:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Bulldog123 is the arbitrator of WP:NOT. Content is policy - style is guideline. How can Policy ever refer to Guideline? I have never been refered to as many WP pages in the last two days. Essays and guidelines but very rarely policy. Mike33 - t@lk 07:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have absolutely no clue what you just said. Bulldog123 16:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In response to User:Moe Epsilon, I was actually talking about the revised version but I can see how that was not clear, sorry for the confusion. D4g0thur 01:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is just trivia. It's a kind of trivia about sex (sort of) which seems to get it a lot of supporters, but it is still just trivia. Greswik 17:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: many !voters have said that this list is trivia. Out of curiosity: what is trivial about it? Is a list of songs about a certain subject trivial? Is this particular subject (masturbation) trivial? And what makes it trivial? Please enlighten me. Aecis^Brievenbus 17:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because this list contains any song that has the briefest mention of masturbation, even if the point is trivial in regards to the work as a whole. Of course, one can't really verify this since most of the entries are unsourced.--Eyrian 18:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per bd2412, and at this point I would suggest a speedy keep closure per WP:IAR to end this nonsense. Wikipedia is not censored, and if that is what you're looking for I suggest you create an account somewhere else. Burntsauce 17:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's not go tossing around accusations of censorship. I have no problem with Wikipedia featuring anything based on offensiveness of content. Please don't conflate people's distaste for what is being perceived as an unreferenced treatment of an unencyclopedic organization with wanting to purify Wikipedia of naughty ideas. Ignoring all rules over the backs of dozens of delete votes seems to be to be a very bad idea. --Eyrian 17:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete Pure trivia and listcruft. What's next — List of songs about winking? On Wikipedia, a list should at least be useful for navigation, but the subject appears to call for a list of all songs, whether notable or not or even if the song was principally about masturbation. As contrived, this list is actually a "list of songs mentioning (or alluding to) masturbation", which is a trivial list. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pointless, trivial list. No secondary sources, as noted above, hence the article is constructed entirely from Wikipedia editors' own interpretations of the lyrics. Even where this is straightforward, it still contravenes WP:NOR. And, as per Eyrian, I strongly object to Burntsauce's allegations of censorship. Neither the nominator, nor any of the Delete !voters, have advocated deletion because the content is inappropriate; it isn't. We advocate deletion because the content is trivial, inadequately sourced, and not consistent with policy. Walton^One 18:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per nom and every other delete above this one. R_O (Talk) 18:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unferenced, and probably 90%+ unreferencable (if that is indeed a word!). Smacks of WP:OR all around. Keep voters above have come up with about 2 songs that truly belong on a list like this, and even then IMO it doesn't merit a Wikipedia article. - fchd 19:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no refs, and not even consistently formatted. It is 50k of OR that we can live without, if the editors want to add the note "this song is about mastubating" to the song pages then I have no problem with that, but this is OR listcruft. Darrenhusted 22:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Reeks of original research, and a unreferenced research at that. — Moe ε 03:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I think that an article about the subject is more appropriate. This undoubtably can be the skeleton to the article, but without references to the naked eye it all looks like WP:OR. There are at least 100 articles songwriters and the odd single that refer to masturbation, so it certainly isn't trivial. An article about this is going to be a real labor of love and I think that when we have so many articles which need improving, it is problematic. There aren't any copy-vio problems that have been raised in previous Afds, really the lyrics are all that save it from mundanity. I looked at the two foreign language versions - the Finnish has been deleted and the Portugese list has had very few updates since 2005. At least we seem to have some consensus. If an editor has saved it for prosterity and is willing to rework it, I think its noble. The amount of music genre involved would make it almost impossible for a single editor to achieve. Listcruft isn't a happy word and Afd isn't a happy place ever. If somebody posted an article in mainspace on listcruft it would be speedy deleted as "something made up at school". I often think some editors view Afd like le tricoteuse. Mike33 - t@lk 05:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, for reasons given by Mike33 at various points in response to others. Plus due to general caution whenever I find the main arguments for deletion surround using the twin prongs of attack of "trivia and crufty". Such reasons are generally only used when no real reasons exist that would stand up to inspection. Mathmo ^Talk 12:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, hopelessly OR, I'm afraid.--Aldux 20:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Terminally original research and listcruft. DWaterson 01:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This isn't even a list of songs about masturbation - they just mention it. I wouldn't think it'd be worth keeping even if that wasn't the case, since it's just original research and trivia, but the fact that the page doesn't stick to its own topic gives me no qualms about chucking it. fuzzy510 04:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep and allow this one to grow. I thought this article had been whacked off of Wikipedia during the last AfD debate, but since it apparently wasn't, what's it doing back up this soon? However, as noted before, popular music is about the only medium for speaking about masturbation. One doesn't read poetry about it, nor is it the subject of television shows, film, news articles or literature. The number of songs indicates that pop music satisfies a desire for this form of the sex act, and provides an outlet for it that, for obvious reasons, can't be found elsewhere. If it offends one's morals, or, worse yet, one's anal ideas about "what Wikipedia is not", don't walk in on it. Mandsford 19:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The last Afd was delogged by accident and was stuck in no consensus. I tried to get the nominator to relist it without success and took it to AN/I, relisted it and it was closed twice as a delete. it went through DR and was reopened as a proceedural error. I think there is now some consensus and will get whacked off. Mike33 - t@lk 21:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment While it will take a few more days to reach climax of this discussion, it looks like it will end with "The result was d*****." I'd spell out the d-word, but I don't want the fantasy to end prematurely for anyone Mandsford 22:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please read the above comments; this is most certainly not about censorship (at least for me and several others; I can't speak to people's motivations). --Eyrian 22:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There may be definition issues etc, but I don't see how the subject of songs is "trivia" (as long as it is the subject). The paranoid (CfD in-joke) may like to note the category is also listed for deletion there. Johnbod 00:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. What's wrong with categorizing this anyway? Kwsn^(Ni!) 01:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (but if kept, prune quite a bit). I'm not convinced that listcruft is a problem, but the list is a mess. Are the lyrics fair use, for example? That's an important question. The big problem is that many of the songs aren't about masturbation. "Captain Jack" by Billy Joel is not about masturbation - all it mentions is "you just sit at home and masturbate", on one line of the entire song, which has nothing to do with masturbation. "All Figured Out" by Bowling for Soup appears to barely mention masturbation as well (I don't know the song, but the lyrics don't look to be about masturbation). "Bracelets of Fingers" is very abstract, but doesn't appear to involve masturbation beyond a questionable title reference. "88 Lines About 44 Women", "Across the Sea", "American Lips", "Barrel of a Gun", "Bullet", "Climbing the Wall", "Come To Me", "Darling Nikki", "Donald & Lydia", "Electrobix", "Flexing Muscles", "Shadow Zone", "Sincerely, Me", and "St. Swithin's Day" just mention masturbation, and "Yummy Down On This" appears to actually be about oral sex. "Claire Danes Poster" is, surprisingly, more about using the title poster as a substitute for a girlfriend, and not as a masturbatory aid. If "But Not Tonight" is about masturbation, it's a very subtle reference. "AA XXX" doesn't even seem to mention or imply masturbation. I've only looked through some of the songs; there are surely more that should be removed for this reason (as I strongly believe that a list of songs mentioning masturbation would be listcruft). Songs where the artist is a redlink should probably be removed too. On the other side of the coin, the list is also bound to be woefully incomplete of songs that should be there (missing, for example, Sex Over The Phone). Disclaimer: I've heard maybe one or two of these songs before, so I can't guarantee there isn't a connection to masturbation I didn't see. Ral315 » 05:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This is the major problem (IMO) with the list, the problem that I'm trying to fix. D4g0thur 07:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Objection to userfy suggestion. It was suggested somewhere above that because of the "lack of referencing in, and hence verifiability of, this list", the list should be moved "into the userspace of D4g0thur". I strongly object to this because "Wikipedia is NOT a personal web host" (WP:NOT#USER). Why on earth should an article be moved to the creators user space in order to avoid deletion on AfD? How is that an acceptable solution? In fairness, you might be able to justify it by saying that the user will ' work on it from there ' but personally I still feel that that practise is questionable at best, especially with an article like this that, by D4g0thur's own admission, would be in user space for a long time. If the article is really that bad then it should simply be deleted, and only restarted if it can be made verifiable and well referenced from the start. —gorgan_almighty 09:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The main reason that it will "take a while" for me to fix the article is that I am quite busy at the moment and won't be doing any major editing for a little while. I'd like to say, I am not the creator of this article, but I feel it deserve a chance at being better. If, after my attempts to improve it, it still fails inclusion criteria, then I will not keep it stored in my userspace. Further, it is very common for Wikipedians to work on articles while keeping them in their userspace. D4g0thur 12:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• To the best of my knowledge, we're allowed to remake deleted content, and to userfy deleted content for improval or transference purposes. Userpages are for personal use, and content that is moved there from mainspace is effectively deleted from the encyclopedia as far as the readers are concerned - we can't, say, redirect deleted articles to userspace copies - so it definitely doesn't count as avoiding deletion. I see no problems with this. Further, WP:NOT#USER disallows using Wikipedia for hosting personal content or self-promotion, but this is neither, just an article that doesn't advertise D4g0thur and bears no overt connection to him. (Disclaimer: No prior dealings with the article, its starters/major editors, or D4g0thur.) --Kizor 13:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with all of your interpretations, but my reasoning is as follows:

1. It is unreferenced, and probably 90%+ unreferencable (as argued by fchd above), therefore it cannot be fixed. It is permanently Original Reasearch.
2. If it is unacceptable as a Wikipedia article, and cannot be fixed, then it is nothing more than personal content hosted on Wikipedia.

—gorgan_almighty 13:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The list could certainly be improved, but the list topic itself (songs that refer to masturbation) is worthy of a list. Atropos 21:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Why? Neil ╦ 08:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – there are more egregious articles out there threatening the sanctity of Wikipedia. Alcarillo 22:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there some hierarchy of badness that we have to go by in nominating articles? I don't get it. Bulldog123 23:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  So much badness, so little time. Gotta prioritize. Or face up to the fact that Wikipedia is (and perhaps ought to be) a crap magnet. And this little nugget we're talking about here has already survived several attempts at deletion. Let it go already, people. Go find other badness to hunt down and destroy. Alcarillo 23:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  You haven't given a reason why it should be kept. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Neil ╦ 08:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course I did. The fact that this is what, the 5th or 6th attempt at deleting it tells me that the Wikipedia community, whatever its collective wisdom, is interested in keeping this article around. And it's completely harmless. Chop it up, edit it down, improve it -- whatever. But don't just kill it because you don't like it.Alcarillo 14:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – it is OR, but so is every plot summary of every episode of Lost (TV series) or Grey's Anatomy etc. that's given in WP. And it is stuff like this that also contributes to the charm of Wikipedia. If Wikipedia wants to be a mirror of people's knowledge, then there's got to be a good sprinkling of trivia as well. Jayen466 00:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment There's a vast difference between a tv episode and a list where half the songs don't even deal with the topic. Kwsn^(Ni!) 04:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  You haven't given a reason why it should be kept. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Neil ╦ 08:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Although many keep arguments are WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, most of the delete arguments are either WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:RUBBISH. WP:ATA is a double-edged knife, but when it comes down to it the closing admin will just ignore all the !votes and such anyway. D4g0thur 09:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Which ones? The delete arguments read like WP:NOR and/or WP:NOT to me. Neil ╦ 11:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• For reference, the main delete arguments so far are as follows:

• Unreferenced, and probably 90%+ unreferencable, therefore Original Research (WP:NOR)
• Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (WP:NOT#INFO)
• Wikipedia articles are not directories - lists or repositories of loosely associated topics (WP:NOT#DIR)
• Wikipedia articles are NOT a synthesis of published material serving to advance a position (WP:SYNTH)
• This list is nothing more than trivia (WP:TRIVIA).

—gorgan_almighty 12:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Arguments of the list's triviality are pretty much WP:IDONTLIKEIT;
• Suggesting deletion based on an article lacking sources is not backed up by WP:NOT, it is basically an argument of WP:RUBBISH;
• WP:SYNTH is not relevant here in any way; and,
• Songs primarily about a topic are not "loosely associated".

— D4g0thur 14:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You are simply incorrect. Wikipedia is not a trivia collection. That's right there in WP:FIVE. There's nothing to do with not liking it. Most of these songs are not primarily about masturbation, as the article makes quite clear. --Eyrian 15:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You are ignoring the fact that an article should only be deleted if the subject is not worthy of an article. Claiming it is trivial is not the same as it actually being trivial; a subject which has had research put into it (see [31] and [32]) is not a trivial subject. Thus, arguments of "delete as trivia" or the like are simply an attempt to justify what is really a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. D4g0thur 15:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The question isn't the subject the article title implies, it's the actual article subject. A referenced explanation of masturbation in popular music would be an excellent article, and would not be deleted. A list of bare-mention OR trivia, which is what this article is, should be. This laundry list of bare-mention references would have no real relevance in constructing the aforementioned good article.--Eyrian 15:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I'm happy enough with the deletion of the current article as long as we don't salt the earth as, although the current article is quite poor, its subject is definately worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. D4g0thur 15:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete - as has undoubtedly been noted already by many other editors, this is a directory of loosely associated topics. The songs have nothing to do with each other beyond some greater or lesser degree of reference to masturbation. The list is rife with original research as demonstrated by the many, many entries on the list whose representative lyrics make no overt reference to masturbation thus requiring interpretation on the part of an editor to decide whether to include it or not. There is no objective standard as to how much of a song must be about masturbation to make the song "about masturbation," which is another instance of original research on the part of editors in making that decision. The problem is well illustrated by the very first entry on the list, "88 lines about 44 Women." The song is 88 lines long and exactly one of them references masturbation. 0.01136% of a song mentioning a particular topic does not to my way of thinking make the song "about" that topic but clearly to someone else it does. Find me an objective standard and verifiable secondary sources that discuss the topic of songs about masturbation, along with reliable sources for every single song on the list, and then the story is different. As it stands the list is irreparable and must be deleted. Otto4711 15:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete In its current OR-filled state, the subject lends itself much better to a category. 17Drew 18:11, 24 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.