Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Something to Believe In (Ramones Song))

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 no consensus. After repeated re-reading, I can't see where there's enough agreement on anything to call it consensus. There is an undercurrent to merge that could be explored further on the article's talk page. I will move the article to the proper title. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something to Believe In (Ramones Song))

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log

)

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

This article is about a Ramones song that isn't independently notable. It was covered by the Pretenders as part of a tribute album but that isn't sufficient reason for a standalone article. Normally, I'd have redirected to the album but the name of the article is a mistyped disambiguated title with an extra closing parenthesis so this is a highly unlikely redirect. This was a contested prod. Whpq (talk) 10:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails
  WP:MUSIC. Not a useful redirect as dab has two ")". Nouse4aname (talk) 10:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Keep or Merge. OK as a die hard Ramones fan I might be a little bias here, but considering that fact that this group is in the rock and roll hall of fame and has in enormous influence on the history of rock, I would argue that individual songs from the group are notable. This is one of their more notable songs, and has been covered, so it would not make complete logic to attribute the song to an individual band. That being said, seems to me that this article could use expansion and a little clean up of grammar. The Ramones have a lot of fans, so I am sure that a vast army of meat puppets can be found that would agree with this position.
  • As time goes on, and I have done a little research into the article, which I still maintain that the song is both notable and has enough verifiable sources to qualify as a stand alone article, however that it might make wikipedia better, if this articles current content were merged into the animal boy album, because to understand the song you need to understand the historical time frame in which it came out, but this time frame makes more sense if it is presented for the whole album rather than just presented over and over again song by song.TeamQuaternion (talk) 02:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This particular song is notable in my mind, because it is very different in style from the typical Ramones song. I notice that five other songs from this album have their own articles, I hope that they are not all up for deletion right now? I try to look over the list of articles for deletion every day, and identify the most keepable and today this article gets my vote as the most notable and verifiable topic our of over 100 that have been proposed. Very few articles with this endorsement have ever been deleted, but with that being said, I have never defended an article about a song before, so sorry for sounding a bit clueless here in my arguments.TeamQuaternion (talk) 00:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet criteria for
  copyright violation. Lastly, the page has been in existence for nearly two weeks and the quality of it is atrocious. J04n(talk page) 00:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I don't understand how a reference can be a copy write violation? If this is correct I will remove it, I put it in there in good faith. But I don't understand how it could be inappropriate to cite a copy write source? In this case at the end of the video is text showing a listing of all the people who participated in the Ramones Aid video. This list could be expanded. It was covered by the pretenders I believe? Also since it appears on several albums it would be hard to merge the content into one particular spot.TeamQuaternion (talk) 01:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the copyright issue see

WP:ELNEVER, linking to that video on that MySpace page is a no no, by linking to it, Wikipedia is illegally distributing that work. I am removing it now. J04n(talk page) 01:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment - The article as nominated was very thin on any significant information. There is nothing stopping any editor from adding material to the the Animal Boy article. In fact, I encourage it. I'm a big Ramones fan myself. But I don't think the song merits a standalone article and the title of this article is a typographical error. -- Whpq (talk) 01:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I agree that if there is a spelling mistake in the title of the article a new article with the proper title needs to be created. I have added three links to this article now, from three different albums that the which the song appears in at a minimum, and would appreciate it if these links did not get broken by a deletion process. How to organize all this song information is something that I am not really expert in, but this particular song seems to have a lot of information about it in particular. If hands across America is notable, then its punk counter part, Ramones Aid would seem notable, as an important social comment on the times. Further, Johnny was ranked as the 16th greatest guitar player of all time, by rolling stone, and in his final production he selected Something to believe in, as one of the 17 songs that represented what the Ramones were all about for the cover compilation album, and then he died. About half the songs from that album have articles, and while I understand that not all songs are notable, it seems like the long history of this song, makes it notable. A little digging I am sure could turn up plenty of material. But that is where the original author might come in, I was looking at his talk page and people have tried to delete just about everything that he ever contributed to Wikipedia which I think is really unfortunate. Sometimes deleting an article, means deleting an editor, and we need more editors. While this by itself might seem irrelevant, in a case were a band is so notable, that at least some of its songs are notable, and notability being such a subjective thing, perhaps when the price is loosing a good editor, maybe we could take into consideration that this was after all a first effort.

In order to be welcoming I think it might be helpful to get input from the original creator of the article. Deleting an article seems such a coercive process, and logging on and finding an entire talk page loaded up with your article has been deleted tags can be really discouraging. I wish we could work out some mutually agreeable solution based on a consensus that included the author.TeamQuaternion (talk) 04:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The author was notified when the article was added to the list of articles for deletion. As for there being information about the song, there is no reason that it cannot be added to the album Animal Boy with notes about its subsequent appearance in other albums. -- Whpq (talk) 10:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under this this reorganization would the other single off the album

My_Brain_Is_Hanging_Upside_Down_(Bonzo_Goes_to_Bitburg), also get merged back into the album article? I notice that coverage of that song is pretty extensive as well, and has a lot of nice work done on it. If you ask me it might be better to keep both of these tracks originally released as singles, in their own single articles, but I care less about organization than I do about presenting the information in a logically consistent manner. I am afraid that extensive coverage of the track that was nominated but won only second place for best video clip, and overshadowing a song that took first place in the New York City Music Awards, would not really do justice to the other track?TeamQuaternion (talk) 11:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment (Note that I have already voted Delete above). So far no valid arguments have been presented to keep the article. Whilst efforts have been made to improve the article, the referencing is insufficient - read
  WP:NSONGS as there is insufficient coverage in multiple reliable third party sources and the song itself has failed to chart. Unless the article can be improved to address these concerns, there is no reason for the article to be kept. Nouse4aname (talk) 14:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• So pretty soon when I try and rewrite these sections again, keep an open mind about them, and yes, I admit that some of the text I will be adding relates to the entire album, and could possibly used as a really powerful argument for merging. I would feel a lot better about changing my vote however, if the original author were to take a look at the material at the references I found and see if he agrees with the logic. Anyway, expect some new edits over the weekend on this subject, but I would not mind getting some feed back.TeamQuaternion (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I still think the sourcing for the material is a bit dodgy but that can likely be fixed. If the decision is to merge, then I suggest that the article be moved first to a title without typographic errors before merging so that a properlt formed redirect is left behinf after the merge. -- Whpq (talk) 01:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentOK I know what you are thinking, some of my recent edits have more to do with the entire Animal Boy album than they do with an individual song specifically and you are right. Please have a look at these edits with an open mind, and don't delete them because they are not really relevant to a specific song just yet. Clearly they are part of the story that needs to be told, but I have to say that they also lend support to the contention that this article should be merged.TeamQuaternion (talk) 02:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I have removed two paragraphs. One was about inconsistent lyrics that simply amounted to

WP:OR. The other was again, unrelated to the song, and still completely unsourced. Nouse4aname (talk) 08:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Move and keep I was gonna just move it, but I haven't done any admin-type things in awhile and I know policy often changes, so instead I'll just say move it so it doesn't have the double parenthesis and keep it. The song was nominated for a New York City Music Award, and I believe on this basis alone it should qualify. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hardly think that a nomination for a New York City Music Award counts as winning or being nominated for a major award (eg: Grammy). Nouse4aname (talk) 07:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have an article on every single Beatles song, I think that a single (charting or not) by the band ranked #2 of all time by Spin magazine qualifies. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Notability is not inhereited. Just because the band is notable, does not mean that every single song they release is also notable. Please refer to
        WP:NSONGS and establish which of these criteria the song meets. Bear in mind that there are substantially more [WP:RS|reliable sources]] that establish notability of songs by the Beatles compared to the Ramones. Nouse4aname (talk) 08:04, 10 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.