Deletion of List of self-referential songs (4th nomination)

Comment: I am somewhat surprised by what I found in looking at the article; although footnotes to the places one plucked the quotes from would be better by way of , they can no doubt be found. I appreciate Mandsford's comment and where the actual words provide ambiguity, the reader can judge for himself or herself, unless es can be found to show the meaning one way or another.  This is done in numerous articles: virtually any exegetical one, those dealing with various any other written document (constitutions, treaties, books, novels), and yes, songs and films. So, that's no barrier to keeping it. But ultimately is this encyclopedic? It's a close call, but I will give it the benefit of that doubt
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS)

Comment: This is no different than songs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_songs_with_personal_names:_A that mentioned a personal name.  I am looking at this as "List of songs that mention itself".  I think making a list of what songs mention is extremely |trival thing to do here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:TRIVIA)

Comment: I think the arguments made against Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs which refer to other songs|List of songs which refer to other songs still apply here.  To quote that nominator, this is "another sprawling (98K and counting) unsourced, #IINFO|indiscriminate list, a #DIR|directory of loosely associated topics.  The list brings together songs with no commonality in style, theme or content beyond happening to supposedly refer to themselves in a line or two of the lyrics. This list tells us nothing about the listed songs... or music in general
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NOT)

Comment: A verifiable list with clearly defined inclusion criteria. Subjective application of 's "loosely associated" and "indiscriminate information" clauses has annoyed me for a long time. I like your argument, JulesH - Self reference and Circular reference are worthy inclusions as notable logical constructs, so examples of such should also be acceptable. Also, can we stop with the straw man examples of "What about List of songs about a ridiculously obscure topic
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)