Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Who's next (song)

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete all of them, but if someone wnts to replace them with redirects, go ahead. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable. Created by a vandal. See also Clone (song) LizardWizard 21:21, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

After a bit more checking, it seems the same user also created:Half myself (song), Eracism (song), Victim (song), In the skin (song), Enemy throttle (song), Countdown extinct (song), Not ded yet (song), Daydreams (song), Amerikan beauty (song), Raise hell (song), Voices (song), The box (song), Wake up (song), The truth (song), and Represent (song)none of which have useful content. I don't want to list them all separately on VFD, but I'm not sure of the policy on vfds for multiple articles. Any help? LizardWizard 21:29, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Consider them all added to this VfD. Delete all, or all that aren't speedied (as I hope most will be). -R. fiend 21:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy, as sugguested by R. fiend. self-admitted nn ("only in Alaska"). Worst case, they should all be moved to an article about the album, but it appears that's not too notable as well. Delete 'em all, I say -mysekurity 21:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect (see below for exception) to the group page as appropriate. These groups (36 Crazyfists and (hed) p.e.) are fairly well known, and have many albums on Sony/BMG's sub-label, Jive and Roadrunner Records (a 25 year-old label). I believe that this was intended as vandalism, but oddly enough I've confirmed all of the titles as true, so redirection makes sense. Please note that the VfD boilerplate on the song pages was for all but Who's next (song) (I fixed it). Also not a candidate for speedy for the same reason. Let me break these down by song, and I will add target of redirect as I go: -Harmil 22:11, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clone (song) Google 752 Redirect to 36 Crazyfists#Discography
  • Who's next (song) Google 156 Redirect to 36 Crazyfists#Discography
  • Half myself (song) Google 66 Redirect to 36 Crazyfists#Discography
  • Eracism (song) Google 127 Redirect to 36 Crazyfists#Discography
  • Victim (song) Google 9270 Redirect to 36 Crazyfists#Discography
  • In the skin (song) Google 565 Redirect to 36 Crazyfists#Discography
  • Enemy throttle (song) Google 122 Redirect to 36 Crazyfists#Discography
  • Countdown extinct (song) Google 1 Lose this one, no redirect (band (16 Bit Slaughter) not listed because of lack of notability).
  • Not ded yet (song) Google 372Redirect to (hed) p.e.#Discography
  • Daydreams (song) Already deleted, but Redirect to (hed) p.e.#Discography
  • Amerikan beauty (song) Google 398 Redirect to (hed) p.e.#Discography
  • Raise hell (song) Google 615 Redirect to (hed) p.e.#Discography
  • Voices (song) Google 4000 Redirect to Voices I hate to redirect to a redirect, but it could cause future problems if "Voices (song)" redirected to "Voice"... However, Voice is the correct disambig page and already lists the Hall & Oats album by the same name.
  • The box (song) Google 535 Redirect to (hed) p.e.#Discography
  • Wake up (song) Google 736 Redirect to (hed) p.e.#Discography
  • The truth (song) Google 898 Redirect to (hed) p.e.#Discography
  • Represent (song) Google 557 Redirect to (hed) p.e.#Discography

I have to take issue with some of your google hits. Victim "36 Crazyfists" get alot of googles, but it appears most are not about the song. "Victim" appears in the name of many other bands that are listed on the same page as 36 Crazyfists in these hits. I see nothing notable about any of these songs, and I hate it when someone decides to write godawful articles on each and every song by their favorite band. These should still be deleted, even if not speedily. -R. fiend 23:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's true, and that really can't be helped. In that one case, I think we can assume that it's the same as the other songs on that (rare) album. Keep in mind we're talking about the songs from a rare, early album from a (now) fairly well published band. I think redirection is the way to go for this. -Harmil 23:20, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. There are perhaps millions of songs in existence; I do not think it is in the best interests of wikipedia to have articles, or even redirects, on the vast majority of them. I'm sure there is at least one other insignificant song named "Victim", for instance, out there somewhere, and I'd rather not give special treatment to 36 Crazyfists by having a redirect for their version. -R. fiend 23:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For more of an idea of where I'm coming from, see my personal thoughts on song articles. -R. fiend 23:45, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To Harmil, I thank you for consulting me on this VfD via my talk page, but I still feel that this artist just isn't that important. I agree with R. fiend's thoughts on song articles, and I feel that perhaps it would be a good idea to move them into one article, but I need further proof that this band is worthy of an article, otherwise I'll just vote it deleted. I think you should go ahead and make the article, and if you prove that it is worthy, it won't get deleted. I'm kinda torn on this one, sorry. -mysekurity 01:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As to the redirect: I think most of these song titles are common enough that they'd need disambiguation. For instance, Clone is by Avail (see Dixie (album), Who's Next? is a The Who album, Victim is by GZA, In the skin is a reasonable mistake for Jessica Simpson's In this skin, Daydreams by Johnny Crawford, Voices by Disturbed (currently links to Voices (song), spuriously), The box by Orbital, Wake up by Three Days Grace, The truth by Good Charlotte, and Represent by Chingy. Some of the song titles are probably unique, but I don't want to spend the time to find out which and even when that's done they won't remain unique forever. LizardWizard 02:27, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Great, and good job with that research. I'm all for changing some of the redirects to be or point to disambig pages later. I'm only recommending redirects to the bands as a first-pass, which I think is a good start (see my suggestion for Voices (song) which has already had its info moved to the disambig page Voice). -Harmil 16:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per R. fiend—I don't think that we need articles (or even redirects) for every song that has ever been written. Maybe there should be some equivalent of WP:MUSIC for songs. JeremyA 03:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per Harmil. The songs seem to be notable to a small extent. DarthVader 03:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on what? That they exist? -R. fiend 06:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on the amount of hits they have with google. DarthVader 07:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, as per JeremyA. JamesBurns 08:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Harmil. If anyone thinks the band(s) aren't notable, VfD the bands. Since the bands exist on Wikipedia and aren't yet contested (so presumably notable), redirects aid in searching. Xoloz 09:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. DarthVader 10:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not about the bands being notable (we have a very low bar for bands, you may have noticed), it's about these songs. LizardWizard has pointed out the problem with unilaterally redirecting these to a minor band like 36 Crazyfists when many other bands have songs with the same name. And even if they didn't, I don't think there's a single other band on wikipedia that has article or redirects for every one of their songs, as we're on the way to doing for this band because of a single fanboy. If 36 Crazyfists has any "hits" that are somewhat noteworthy we can address those separately, but this is ridiculous. Shall I turn Central Nervous System into a disambiguation page because its also the name of a song by Citizen Fish? -R. fiend 15:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, but an italized sentence at the top of the nervous system article wouldn't be a bad idea. If a band is notable enough to reside here, then, presumably, it is possible that any user might search for any of their songs. A user-friendly Wiki should accomodate these searches to the extent practicable. Massive disambiguation pages for common nouns isn't practical, but sending off redirects when they come to our attention seems practical to me. Xoloz 17:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally, I think that's an awful idea. "Notable enough for wikipedia" isn't necesarily terribly notable; we potentially have an article by every band that's ever released some sort of album. That's thousands and thousands of songs, many of which are common words, terms, things, people, etc. Implementing your plan would have thousands of articles with useless headers at the top, so the first thing the reader sees when looking up a significant topic is that some band from the 70's whom no one's ever heard of had a song with that name (is that what you were looking for? no? Just thought we'd ask.). As no articles exist on such songs, just redirects, there's no real information to go to. In the Central Nervous System example I gave, we're talking about a rather insignificant song by what not one of the world's premier bands (great band though they are). No one who doesn't already know the song is going to search for it (it's not as if it gets radio play), so they won't gain any information out of it. While wikipedia should be (and basically is) a good resource for music topics, it is not, and should not be, a "who's that song by again?" reference. We should instead have full articles on important songs. Many headers you propose would in fact have a list of a dozen or more bands who had songs with the same name, which would particularly interfere with the article. -R. fiend 17:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right, well, as I said, I'd impose a reasonableness test regarding practicality in cases where there were an inordinate number of songs with similar names or common names. I'm no music fan, generally, but if I looked up "Central Nervous System", I might be mildly amused/marginally enriched by learning about a song I'd never dream of. Such has happened before with the song about James K. Polk written by They Might Be Giants. I still have little idea who this band is, but I continue to chuckle that they wrote a song about our dour 11th President. In any case, little headers at the top of articles are hardly disruptive; if you have no interest, they are very easy to ignore. I suppose I support any knowledge-connections that aren't too cumbersome. Xoloz 21:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Where there are many songs with the same title, here's a possible solution. Imagine there are 50 songs named Highway -- at the top of the Highway article, one italicized sentence could read, There are also many songs with this title. For more information, see... and this could link to a song disambig page. Readers who cared would have a full list, others could easily ignore the one line. Xoloz 21:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It might be interesting to some, but its encyclopedic value is dubious, at best. And we are not here to "mildly amuse", but to mildly educate. It might not be terribly disrputive to have a header that Central Nervous System is a song by Citizen Fish, but wikipedia does have some first impression issues, and when that's the first thing someone reads when searching for that topic, it doesn't really help. Sure, it's interesting that They Might Be Giants have a song called James K. Polk (and they're a pretty good band, give them a listen sometime) but I was still quite pleased to see there was no header on the President's page stating that fact; far down in the "trivia" section is much better. On a completley different note, now that we have mentioned our 11th President, I am hoping to get him official recognition as "America's Mullet President". I hope you all endorse this. I'm thinking of making some T-shirts. -R. fiend 02:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • • • The merits of this proposal are so obvious that I, for one, would hope for unanimous support. Xoloz 09:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the lot of them. I wouldn't object to redirects being put there afterwards. Radiant_>|< 15:02, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Irishpunktom\^talk 08:30, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.