Deletion of List of songs with personal names: A

Comment: #IINFO|Wikipedia articles are not indiscriminate collections of information and #DIR|Wikipedia articles are not directories of loosely-associated topics. These lists draw together songs from across every style, genre and theme of music that have absolutely nothing in common beyond happening to have a person's name, or in some cases a word that can be used as a person's name but in the song title is not, in the title. The lists tell us absolutely nothing about the songs, the names, or music in general. We have deleted any number of similar lists of songs by title recently and these are no better than those and worse than a lot of them. No argument has been advanced in support of these lists beyond "names are different" and "people like stuff with their names in it" and these are not valid arguments. No consensus closures of previous AFDs are not an automatic bar to re-nomination, especially in light of the clear and strong consensus against these sorts of inane lists that has emerged recently
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: As a matter of fair disclosure, I was the nominator of the previous AFD. The supporters of this list have claimed any number of benefits to its presence. Unfortunately, these claims are not supported by policy or the current content. The idea that this list could, for example, demonstrate the "value ... in the comparison of names that appear in songs across eras, for example, as indicators of the popularity and longevity of first names" is implausible with the current state of the list, which has no dates, no context, no information at all except for a long enumeration of songs and their authors, sorted into a novel order. During the previous debate, I forwarded a 6-month timeframe before ''I'' would renominate this content for deletion as |indescriminate and without context. But as this has been independently nominated, I see no real reason to wait; even were this list reformatted or re-envisioned to allow cross-cultural comparison, or an alternative organizational structure to access information about people, or any of the other ideas raised during this or previous AFDs, it would be a |novel synthesis of information. Wikipedia is (within its limits) meant to be comprehensive ... but it is meant to be a |comprehensive encyclopedia. No |appropriate sources have been forwarded to show that anyone other than a few editors here has considered this information in this way, and even though some comments here show a distate for the policies involved, "|original research" is the opposite of "encyclopedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:SYN||WP:ENC||WP:RS||WP:OR)

Comment: per nom and the above comments. I really don't get why people do this kind of thing... it is obviously indiscriminate information. This really shouldn't have survived the previous AfD...  is policy no matter how many  !votes there are
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: per #DIR, #1, "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". That's not witch-hunt, it's policy
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: I know the s are coming, but it's indiscriminate and probably unmaintainable. Per above
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: characterizing the AFDs of various lists as a "witch hunt" is a monumental failure to |assume good faith on the part of those throwing out the accusation. And incidentally it does not address the actual issues raised by the nomination
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF)

Comment: per #DIR, indiscriminate information
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)