Deletion of Tobacco references in music

Comment: This is a completely notable (and quite interesting) topic – see, e.g., https://www.scribd.com/document/109055294/Charles-Van-den-Borren-Tobacco-and-Coffee-in-Music-in-Musical-Quarterly-XVIII-3-1932-pp-355-374 this article in the ''Musical Quarterly'' of July 1932. Among the many composers who've written in praise of tobacco are Thomas Ravenscroft ("Tobacco fumes away"), Telemann and Bach (''Erbauliche Gedanken eines Tobackrauchers'', BWV 515a); John Lennon was rather less complimentary in I'm So Tired. The present content should be completely removed – Wikipedia is wp:NOTSOAP|not a soapbox, and it appears to make |unsupported claims about living people. No objection if that is accomplished by 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:TNT)

Comment: Take your pick - , , , etc
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE||WP:LISTN)

Comment: A lot of work went into this article but unfortunately, as it currently stands, should be deleted for 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: Since the essay will have to go regardless, that leaves only the list, which is pretty much the embodiment of |an indiscriminate collection of information; one could perform the same exercise with any word in the English language.&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:IINFO)

Comment: I don't really follow some of the assumptions being made. Firstly, you say "it's similar to the 'list of countries for which gay marriage has been legalized' in the 'Gay marriage' article" – there isn't a list in that article, do you mean the timeline table? In any case that argument is  – personally I am not a fan of including lists on Wikipedia as I think it is unencyclopedic, and that's why I disagree with your statement "This information should be readily available from any respectable encyclopedia in 2016"... that's not what an encyclopedia should be about. The comparison is not valid anyway as the timeline is about actual events (the date of same-sex marriage legalization in each country) and mostly cited from reliable sources, not a list about a topic... if you include a list like this one, you could have a list about any subject mentioned in songs – alcohol, children, forests, etc
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)

Comment: If this were an article listing songs which had been individually, or as a group, covered in reliable sources about, say, songs influencing kids to smoke, that might be acceptable (depending on the sources, of course). Unfortunately, this looks to be 100%  -- loading a bunch of song lyrics (the only references are lyrics websites and youtube), doing a text search for e.g. "cigarette", and copying it into the list. It saddens me to see this much work done before there's an intervention, but {{u|H. Nicole Young}}, Wikipedia doesn't cover anything that hasn't already been noted as significant by |reliable sources. If nobody has said it's significant that a particular song mentions smoking, then there's no place for saying so on Wikipedia. There are sources for the lyrics which show they do mention tobacco, but bringing them together yourself, when it hasn't already been done by others, is |original research, which isn't allowed (because, again, we only include what reliable sources say, not what patterns we see or aspects we think are important). If you think there's a way to salvage/rework it, know that this discussion will be open until at least the 14th (7 days from nomination). One option you might want to request is "userfication", which is when an article is moved to a place like
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:RS||WP:OR)

Comment: as unsourced , also complete trivia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)