Deletion of List of songs whose title includes a phone number (3rd nomination)

Comment: idiosyncratic list with a |non-notable underlying concept
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NN)

Comment: his argument in the last AFD is quite uncompelling. He cites Wikipedia:Lists_%28stand-alone_lists%29#Appropriate_topics_for_lists|a guideline for lists but his cited guideline states that the creator (and by extension, the defenders) of a list must be prepared to explain why the list contributes to the state of human knowledge. I don't see any such explanation in any of the AFDs of this article. He goes on to cite a slew of Template:Lists of US Presidents and Vice Presidents|lists about presidents of the United States to justify this list.  is not a compelling argument. Each article must pass policies and guidelines on its own regardless of the existence of any other article. Even if one were to ignore that flaw in his argument, since the last AFD of this article a number of those lists have been deleted, so that particular reed has grown rather slenderer. Finally he states that it is possible that someone might be interested in this information. We delete articles every day that people are interested in, because they don't meet policies or guidelines. That somethign is interesting is not automatic grounds for its inclusion in Wikipedia. Uncle G's arguments are weak, they do not address the objections to this list raised in the nomination, and opinions |relying on them should be discounted
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS||WP:PERNOM)

Comment: as an #DIR|indiscriminate list of information
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: As Uncle G pointed out, this list is well-defined and unlikely to attract |original research.  Furthermore, the songs listed ''do'' have something in common: they lead people to call the numbers, a fact that has been noted and even used as a form of marketing. See http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000609969 this article, particularly the last paragraph
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: Believe it's been said but this is just a directory of loosely associated things which #DIR|Wikipedia is not.  Can't believe this survived AfD twice
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Just because it's true (and sourced) doesn't mean that it should be included in Wikipedia. Even if the article itself is not indiscriminate (i.e. it has clear inclusion criteria), that doesn't mean that #INDISCRIMINATE doesn't apply. In my opinion this article is not of any encyclopedic use
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: I know we aren't supposed to use our basis as , but I think that if we have articles about songs with names, songs with places, and songs under one minute, we might as well have this one, too
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)