Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs with rhythmic train samples

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs with rhythmic train samples

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Useless list. Possible incomplete, and not sourced. Text in gray box copied from [1]. » Shadowowl | talk 16:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I'm laughing that someone thought this needed an article. Useless, unnecessary, and a poorly written article anyawy. Ultimograph5 (talk) 16:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Poorly written, not sourced, and no reason established why this article is necessary or important. Tillerh11 (talk) 18:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Terribly sourced to Youtube videos, borderline unreadable and incomprehensible. Almost WP:A1 level. Sergecross73 msg me 15:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:LISTN and WP:LISTCRITERIA. Article created by an editor who seems to be a SPA for everything to do with Vulfpeck, the first act named in this list. The worst thing is, this list doesn't even include "Trans-Europe Express", surely the most influential train rhythm song of all (and the one song whose train rhythm origins can actually be reliably verified)... Richard3120 (talk) 16:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I suspect that this topic is fancruft among a small esoteric group of enthusiasts. If someone from that community had a convincing reason for why this list is worthy of an encyclopedia per WP:LISTCRITERIA, I might buy it, but I can figure out no such rationale myself. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ... Dear god!, Fails every policy on this project, Kill it with fire. –Davey2010^Talk 17:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Keeping this article is a total waste of valuable encyclopedia space. It's original research, poorly sourced and a list based on a totally non-notable topic. Ajf773 (talk) 22:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.