Deletion of List of Paramore songs (2nd nomination)

Comment: This list is a different item from the discography and it serves a different purpose. It could be included on the discography, but that may be bloating an article with information that is beyond its scope. The information ''is'' redundant when presented like this, but it is inevitable that any list will replicate information found elsewhere, since its purpose is to centralize such information for better access by the user. Lastly, I don't think that  is much of an issue here, as the songs is the lowest point we can get to in terms of coverage (I think we would mostly agree that List of Paramore Verses is over the top). The notes section of the table looks like |original research, so it should either be sourced properly, or be dropped
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:OR)

Comment: No section of  applies here, nor does it violate the spirit of . It's not a plot description, a lyrics database, or a collection of stats. Since :Category:Lists_of_songs_by_authors_or_performers|this category demonstrates that a vast amount of other crap exists, we can call this precedent instead of labeling it crap. That's precisely why the first AfD nom was withdrawn
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:NOT)

Comment: I agree that it might be |indiscriminate, but I don't think the article is redundant of the discography since it covers all songs as opposed to the albums and the singles alone. Also, I know that , but the category mentioned at the first AfD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_songs_by_authors_or_performers does bring a ''whole lot'' of other crap. I'm not sure it is possible to assess this article's validity without taking those into account
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS)