Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Lyrics Explained

Lyrics Explained
This appears to be a page devoted to giving reviews and interpretations of various songs. This is something that is not really a textbook, and is easily abused with many NPOV problems. It also seems like an advertisement for a particular singer, even if the "goal" of the "book" is to be more general. Perhaps this can be very loosly defined as an educational resource, but that is really pushing the limits here on that concept. --Rob Horning 18:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Not a textbook, covers completely irrelevant topic (explaining song lyrics by a Swedish folk singer). Delete. --Derbeth talk 19:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * On the contrary- I find that such a book would be perfectly legit-  at least as legit as similar books about literature and other forms of art.  I do find that this particular attempt is a permanent stub of little value and can see a delete vote based on that, or even soapbox based on the lack of other artists songs, but not on the general concept that interpreting a song is off topic.  --Gabe Sechan 21:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem I have this this attitude is how do you make it NPOV on a song "interpretation"? This seems very close to a song review area, where there is plenty of opinion but nothing factual, or for that matter even the ability to make this neutral.  For example, you can take the Beatles song "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" and describe artistic metaphors ranging from a bunch of kids playing to strong references about LSD (the drug).  This is not a factual encyclopedia article that is being recommended, but an "interpretation" of the lyrics.  And the encyclopedic articles ought to remain on Wikipedia anyway, so what is left for this book?  A portal page for Wikipedia?  That shouldn't be here either.  As for similar kinds of books for other artistic endeavors, what about book reviews, or movie reports?  Both have been soundly defeated in the past by VfDs.  --Rob Horning 12:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * List any interpretation, unless one is supported by the artist himself. A large collection of those I do think fits a book rather than an encyclopedia article.  This attempt at one is not very good and qualifies for deletion, though.  We can argue again in the future if someone makes a good attempt at a general one :)--Gabe Sechan 21:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Same reason as Derbeth. --German Men92 21:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 19:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Contrary to Rob Horning above, this book offers neither reviews nor interpretations. Indeed, that is (at least part of) the problem.  I can see voting to keep a book giving literary commentary, though NPOV literary commentary would be a difficult trick.  I even voted above to keep what I described in my vote as "a high school level book report on what is probably Steinbeck's least enduring work".  But this book is not even that.  After two years of nothing but a few minor copyedits, I'd say that this is an abandoned project without serious hope of becoming something significant.  --JMRyan 20:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Deleted --Kernigh 01:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)