Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breathe (Pink Floyd song)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. NW (Talk) 17:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Breathe (Pink Floyd song)

[edit]
Breathe (Pink Floyd song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable song, fails WP:NSONGS, consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pink Floyd#Pink Floyd songs was to redirect to album per policy. John (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There was not even discussion about this song, let alone consensus at WP:FLOYD. I posted this here originally, but another user decided to move it below, to a less conspicuous spot.Mk5384 (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There was not even discussion, let alone consensus, about this song at WP:FLOYD.Mk5384 (talk) 06:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There has to be? Erpert (let's talk about it) 14:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's cut the shit, huh? Above, John says that at WP:FLOYD, there was consensus to redirect this song. I have pointed out that not only was there no consensus; it wasn't even discussed.Mk5384 (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, you need to be civil. That was completely unnecessary. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was completely unnecessary for you to move it.Mk5384 (talk) 07:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I clearly explained it the edit summary why I moved it. Sheesh. Erpert (let's talk about it) 08:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's the bit that applies from NSONGS: "Most songs[note 5] do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album". It would be great if those wishing to keep this could explain hows an article like this relates to this. --John (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article is not a stub. It has "enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". The song has been "performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups". This is not "most songs". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, that's where we disagree. I guess my delete rationale is that articles like this are effectively sub-stubs, once you discount material that is or could be in the album article, and also that they can inherently never be developed beyond stubs. They should not exist unless there is sufficient sourced material that is of interest to an encyclopedia yet would not fit on the album article, and this is the intention of WP:NSONGS. That, I do not see at present, though of course YMMV. WP:INHERITED and User:Kww's excellent arguments below also sum up my feelings on this one. --John (talk) 05:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The statement that there should be an article if "there is sufficient sourced material, ect., yet would not fit on the album article", is your opinion, and not part of WP:NSONGS.Mk5384 (talk) 05:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Parrot of Doom: That isn't a very good "keep" rationale; see WP:INHERITED.
Let me say it this way then - I own quite a few Floyd-related books, and I could very easily create a GA out of that song article. I'm not going to, frankly because there are more interesting things for me to do, but there is no shortage of coverage of this song in places where those who know where to look, do so. Parrot of Doom 18:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's funny, right below WP:INHERITED is WP:LOTSOFSOURCES! I don't see how the article could ever aspire to be a GA. If nobody is ever going to develop it beyond its current state, it's tempting to think it can't ever be developed beyond that stage. Hence the nomination. --John (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Whilst showing the subject is mentioned in a number of sources, not all sources are reliable and may only be trivial mentions" - I'd hardly include the list of print sources I've used in The Dark Side of the Moon as unreliable, and I know for a fact that John Harris says quite a bit about "Breathe". Perhaps, rather than simply redirecting the page, you might first try expanding it yourself? Parrot of Doom 19:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carrite: I think you might have missed the point of WP:NSONGS.

--Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - song has had some coverage and is in one of the most famous albums by Pink Floyd. However, sourcing could definitely be improved.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 21:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keeping our legs on the ground (as it were!), most of the coverage for most of the songs on this album is coverage of the album, the songs being part of the album. Potentially, all of these songs could be merged into The Dark Side of the Moon (or perhaps The Dark Side of the Moon (analysis) or some such). Just because a song is famous, doesn't mean that it will automatically have its own coverage in sources, especially if that song is a track from a concept album. This is exactly analogous, IMO, to having four different articles for each of the individual movements of Beethoven's most famous symphonies. In fact, even the opening movement of the Fifth and the last movement of the Ninth don't get individual articles. In truth, only one of the songs from DSOTM is heard very often divorced from the album, viz "Money". I am not saying delete/merge/redirect here as I suspect there will be more sourcing about this song (rather than the album) out there, we just need to find it. I do think too many here are getting a bit carried away with the moment, though: "Breath must be famous, it's on a famous album by a famous band!!!" or whatever. I almost posted words to that effect. The song is certainly "notable" in the dictionary sense; whether it is notable in the WP sense is yet to be seen. The article only has three sources so far, only one of which I can personally verify (Allmusic). The coverage in the other sources might be trivial for all I know. Also, I might point out that John has been incredibly bold and redirected most of side two to the album's article. Just out of interest, is Pigsonthewing the same Andy Mabbett that wrote The Complete Guide to the Music of Pink Floyd? Not that it matters (the author of that book wrote it long before WP and doesn't have any obvious COI here), I am just curious that no one has asked about this yet or attempted to use it against Andy's !vote! --Jubilee♫clipman 00:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to parent albumNeutral: [{WP:NSONGS]] is quite specific about what songs qualify for individual articles, and arguments to keep this one need to refer to that guideline. What I see about is essentially "I like it and it's famous", which is not the stuff of which policy arguments are made. From WP:NSONGS:
  • "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
  • Specifically states that the requirements for songs include WP:N. The requirements laid down by WP:NSONGS are in addition to WP:N.
  • "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings) is in general not notable; however, it may be notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting."
  • This doesn't apply to this discussion, as it is about albums.
  • "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song."
  • Pretty basic guidance: in general, don't write separate articles for songs, cover them in sections of larger articles.
  • "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable."
  • Here's the major exception: songs that have charted, won awards, or been covered by multiple artists can get articles.
  • "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album."
  • Even if the article charted, won awards, or been covered by multiple artists, it may not deserve an article.
So, given all of that, the test for "passing WP:NSONGS" is "received coverage in multiple reliable sources" AND (charted, won an award, or been covered by multiple artists) AND "received enough coverage that we can write more than a stub". Coverage first, and then does something that qualified. This song doesn't seem to meet those conditions.—Kww(talk) 00:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It meets all these conditions, as explained in detail by multiple editors above. This afd seems to be based on complete and wilful ignorance. A google search on Breathe "Pink Floyd" gets around 10^6 hits: I have not sifted through all these but expect some of them will have some merit. Occuli (talk) 10:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please show me where the song has charted, has had recordings issued by multiple artists, or won awards. If you can show that it meets any one those three, I will change my !vote to keep.—Kww(talk) 14:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I will withdraw the nomination, which is based on a failure to meet WP:NSONGS. If it can be shown that it does in fact meet NSONGS, obviously this nomination would be moot. I do not believe that it can, and I believe all the opposition so far to redirecting this shows fundamental misunderstanding of NSONGS. Prove me wrong, and improve the article to reflect the notable awards the song has won, the music charts it has been listed in as a single, and the bands who have released versions of it, and we can close early. --John (talk) 15:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had missed one of the covers: the cover by Sea of Green may be enough to squeak it past WP:NSONGS. The two off of tribute albums don't count for much in my view. The real question is whether one cover by an obscure band meets "performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups". I'd still say not.—Kww(talk) 17:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation of vote change:I believe in following guidelines, and I'm pretty strict about it. I think the intent of WP:NSONGS was to eliminate articles about songs like this one: completely unremarkable individual tracks. That said, people have noted the existence of sufficient cover versions that I think it meets the "performances by multiple notable artists" for extremely low values of "notable." I'd rather the article didn't exist, but the topic squeaks past WP:NSONGS. I will point out that the intent of that is to allow discussion of the cover versions, and hope one of the editors so intent on keeping this article will modify it to actually discuss the cover versions that justify the article's existence.—Kww(talk) 04:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's right. Pink Floyd performed it independently. It appears on the album Dark Side of the Moon. Roger Waters performed it independently. It appeared on the album In the Flesh-Live. David Gilmour performed it independently. It appeared on the album Live in Gdansk.Mk5384 (talk) 06:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now, you know what the policy means by "independent". Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All I know is that one user is on a crusade to rid this encyclopaedia of Pink Floyd song articles by following the letter of WP:NSONGS, rather than using common sense. So if we're going to follow NSONGS to the letter, then perfomances by Floyd, Waters, and Gilmour meet the letter.Mk5384 (talk) 07:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it's not "policy", but a guideline, subject to common sense, and occasional exceptions, not to mention WP:IAR.Mk5384 (talk) 07:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but you shouldn't ignore all rules simply because you like the subject. And where's the proof that the user is a crusade to get rid of Pink Floyd-related articles? Erpert (let's talk about it) 14:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the redirects in this index are the recent work of crusader John (and there are others: see J's contribs around then with the SONGS comment). These are all just 'redirect', not 'merge and redirect' (which requires reflection and effort). I'm surprised that no-one has challenged any of these (some of which may well be non-notable). Marooned ... anyone? Occuli (talk) 17:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep PoD has demonstrated that the song is notable and receives non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. If it wasn't for the caveat that "a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article", it would be pretty obvious that this AfD should be swiftly closed. As it is, the article is reasonably detailed and could be still further expanded. Nev1 (talk) 12:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of non-trivial coverage in WP:RSes. A live performance by another notable artist (Flaming Lips) seems to cap this quite solidly. Torchiest talk/contribs 17:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another tribute album. I have a hard time counting tribute album covers as counting towards the guideline for the same reason that I don't count phonebooks as contributing to the notability of people: tributes cover everything, regardless of notability.—Kww(talk) 19:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tributes don't cover "everything". Instead they cover artists' music with a fan base wide enough to merit tribute albums. The phonebook does, indeed, cover (almost) everyone. Tribute albums are only made when an artist feels that another artist is worth covering.Mk5384 (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not claiming that Pink Floyd isn't notable. Certainly, the existence of tribute albums to Pink Floyd is strong evidence that Pink Floyd is a notable group. I'm not claiming that "Dark Side of the Moon" isn't a notable album, either. However, once someone decides to reproduce the complete album in a different style, they are going to do every song. The existence of Dub Side of the Moon and The Flaming Lips and Stardeath and White Dwarfs with Henry Rollins and Peaches Doing The Dark Side of the Moon show notability for the album, not the individual songs.—Kww(talk) 20:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is just getting stranger and stranger. Instead of treating the guideline "with common sense, subject to the occasional exception", as WP:NSONGS says, and realising that there's virtually unamious desire to keep, you keep trying to find a way to shoot down each attempt at proof of notability.Mk5384 (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am treating it with common sense: there's nothing exceptional about this song that would merit an article, and people aren't demonstrating that there is. No one has made a strong case that this is one of the "occasional exception"s. It's just a track, albeit a track on a notable album by a notable group.—Kww(talk) 20:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The case that this is one of the exceptions is the overwhelming majority of users here. The page is filled with "keeps", (I know; they don't count) and this AfD is not going to carry. I just don't understand it. Oh well.Mk5384 (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I referred to had nothing to do with any tribute album. I was talking about the Flaming Lips' live performance of the song on Jimmy Fallon. That's a separate independent performance of the specific song. Torchiest talk/contribs 21:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a separate independent performance, manifestly. WP:NSONGS makes no mention of tribute albums anyway. There's another cover on Emmerson Nogueira: Ao Vivo ... I await some common sense reading of WP:NSONGS (between or behind or above the lines) to exclude this one, while skipping over WP:IDONTLIKEIT. At least the Chinese seem better informed. Occuli (talk) 00:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said, this is approaching the point of absurdity. There is overwhelming consensus to keep, yet "only votes that conform to policy count". (Made up rule) "Breathe" has been performed, and recorded independently by Roger Waters and David Gilmour, both of whom have solo careers outside of Pink Floyd that span decades. That doesn't count because "they were both in Pink Floyd". (Made up rule) The song has been performed, and recorded independently by numerous artists, but "tribute albums don't count". (Made up rule) When it was pointed out that the article is not a stub, "then it's a 'sub stub". (Made up rule) The song is somehow qualified for its own article only if "the information won't fit in the album article". (Made up rule) And this debate begins with John saying that he had consensus to redirect it at WP:FLOYD, when this song wasn't even mentioned there. Notability has been proven; there's clear consensus to keep. It's become humorous.Mk5384 (talk) 03:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't clear consensus to keep; there are clear votes to keep. And if you think the first point in your previous paragraph is a made-up rule, you clearly didn't read the tag at the top of the page. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above editor (the one who moved by post about no discussion at WP:FLOYD to a less prominent place in this article), has now gone to my talk page, and accused me of making personal attacks.-LOL-As this article is cruising to an easy keep, there's not much need for me to post further here, and risk allowing myself to be baited into something.Mk5384 (talk) 07:39, 4 June 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Breathe_(Pink_Floyd_song)&oldid=1137646966"