Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pull Me Under (individual nomination)
Source: 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. JForget 22:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pull Me Under
AfDs for this article:
- Pull Me Under (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:GNG, although placement on "national or significant music charts ... [or winning] significant awards or honors" establishes a presumption of notability. And third, even if a song is notable, it should only be treated in a separate article "when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article...." This song fails to clear that hurdle and should be deleted or merged into Images and Words
.
A procedural note, hatted by the author.
|
|---|
|
This article was previously nominated for deletion in a batch with ten other Dream Theater songs, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pull Me Under. The closing admin, user:SilkTork, concluded that since the multiple listing was complex, the nominated articles agreed as the least notable should be redirected, and the rest should be relisted individually. Per this and my 21:56, 12 August comment at the previous nomination, I have redirected The Silent Man, Hollow Years, Home, A Right of Passage, and Forsaken, as there appeared to be rough consensus to delete them, and am individually relisting Pull Me Under, Take the Time, Another Day, Lie, Through Her Eyes, and Constant Motion |
- Simon Dodd { WP:LAW } 18:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the most recognised and highest-charting single by a very notable band is clearly going to be sourceable and expandable - although I agree it's quite waffly and unsourced at the moment. If all these rogue Dream Theater singles are really causing you such a problem, I don't have any particular issue with redirecting it with history intact for now, but I very much doubt deletion is the answer here - even if the single was entirely non-notable it would be better to redirect as a likely search term. ~ mazca talk 07:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
- Keep - I think the bizarre ending alone (see the article, it "simply stops, mid-note,") in a major release makes it pretty notable. New listeners will get to the end and wonder if their CD/MP3 is damaged, inspiring a search to learn more about the song (this is what happened to me, anyway). If people want to know about it, then it's probably sufficiently notable. -- stillnotelf is invisible 14:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is an astonishingly flawed theory of notability. "If people"--in context, necessarily read anyone, since there's no way to quantify demand--"want to know about it, then it's probably sufficiently notable"? Really? A subject is notable simply because it is conceivable that someone might want to know about it? That is not the standard of WP:GNGor any other guideline. I have never heard of it, and it directly contradicts the text, purpose, spirit, indeed concept of the notability policy.
- That is an astonishingly flawed theory of notability. "If people"--in context, necessarily read anyone, since there's no way to quantify demand--"want to know about it, then it's probably sufficiently notable"? Really? A subject is notable simply because it is conceivable that someone might want to know about it? That is not the standard of
- Nor is it true, by the way, that it "stops mid-note." Count it out. That section is in common time, and the last note of the recording is the fourth note of a bar of four. How is that "stopping mid-note"? Come to think of it, since there is no theoretical limit on the number of times the beat can be divided, the concept that music can ever stop "mid-note" is nonsense. Even if the band continued to play three 64th notes into the next bar and then stopped, that would be stopping mid-bar -- and only then on the dubious assumption that we'd say the time signature remained in 4/4 and just stopped, rather than changing to 3/64 for the last bar of the song or writing it off as rubato. - Simon Dodd { WP:LAW } 15:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nor is it true, by the way, that it "stops mid-note." Count it out. That section is in common time, and the last note of the recording is the fourth note of a bar of four. How is that "stopping mid-note"? Come to think of it, since there is no theoretical limit on the number of times the beat can be divided, the concept that music can ever stop "mid-note" is nonsense. Even if the band continued to play three 64th notes into the next bar and then stopped, that would be stopping mid-bar -- and only then on the dubious assumption that we'd say the time signature remained in 4/4 and just stopped, rather than changing to 3/64 for the last bar of the song or writing it off as rubato. - Simon Dodd {
- Delete. Fails WP:NSONGS. Article claims the single charted on a lesser Billboard chart, but Billboard shows the song as never charting with them. [1]. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The chart position is sourced in the article to Allmusic, which is generally considered a reliable source here; and the fact that Pull Me Under actually charted reasonably highly is a commonly-cited fact in many Dream Theater biographies. Are you entirely confident in the completeness of the new Billboard website, particularly in respect of lesser charts from 17 years ago? ~ mazca talk 20:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
- I'm comfortable taking Billboards word over what charted on their own charts. There are also a lot of editors that do not feel that charting on the lesser charts is really charting. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, some archive information on the Billboard.com site has not been accessable since the site redseign. So allmusic is the best source for the charting information at this point. And in this case, the article contains a link to an article on Billboard's site that confirms the chart position per allmusic. And the Mainstream Rock Chart is hardly a "lesser chart". Rlendog (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jake Wartenberg 04:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
- Keep I have added a reference from a Billboard feature article that confirms the chart listing of the song. There have got to be more references easily found due to its inclusion in Guitar Hero as well. I don't believe that notability is an issue. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 22:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Jim, under NSONGS, notability is not the only criterion. Assuming notability, what's your argument (implicit in your keep vote is that you have one) for why a standalone article is justified?- Simon Dodd { WP:LAW } 02:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that WP:NSONGS, although I don't do enough editing in the music area to know what consensus is regarding the definition of a "significant" chart. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 17:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that
- Jim, under NSONGS, notability is not the only criterion. Assuming notability, what's your argument (implicit in your keep vote is that you have one) for why a standalone article is justified?- Simon Dodd {
- Keep - The single charted, so meets WP:N. There is enough information in the article as it stands to warrant a standalone article, although sourcing could be improved. Not seeing any reason to delete. Rlendog (talk) 01:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Heavy MTV rotation and charting is enough to keep it notable. ken20008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken20008 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 7 September 2009 (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.