Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gori gora gori borovina

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 delete. The only way to get an article kept is to find reliable sources covering the subject in detail. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gori gora gori borovina[edit]

Gori gora gori borovina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable song; only reference is to a YouTube video. (Procedurally doubtful too - pushed through AfC by article's creator, no-one else involved.) Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I can't find anything that proves notability. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Delete. The song clearly exists but, like Tokyogirl179, I can't unearth evidence of notability. Not in English, anyway. Colonel Tom 09:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article provides a referenced and moderatable and civil platform for a substandard youtube comment based debate on origins. The discussion is invited in the discussion, the author was obviously not an expert but placed it as a topic of public interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.187.73.214 (talk) 10:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC) — 125.187.73.214 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP (Struck double vote) The youtube reference is a direct link to a valid and verified cultural organisation, its a valid reference in the context of folk songs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.187.73.214 (talk) 10:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC) — 125.187.73.214 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Comment: Youtube videos are not considered to be reliable sources per Wikipedia standards. [[WP:RS] Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Merge to gori borovina, leaving a redirect. Sources do not need to be in English. I think it is clear that there is a folk-song called either "Gori borovina" or "Gori gora gori borovina". Admittedly, the only thing approaching RS that I can find are about a version sung by Mate Bulić; but it's fairly obvious that that is a version adapted from a traditional piece. For example, see this indicates a performance of it by Bulić, and this seems to be a newspaper article about a mayor?politician? quoting from the song. I think this is talking about it in terms of a TV show. (I'm going on auto-translate tools, here). Obviously, the topic could benefit greatly from someone who speaks the language! But, I think the two can be merged, framing it as a folk song which has been performed by the specific artist Bulić, with one forwarding to the other. I'm not sure about the YouTube link - a 'verified cultural organization'? It just says "SrdjanMarkovicNK's Channel"; the copyright status of that link must be clarified, or the link removed (per WP:EL). I don't think we need a separate article for the song and the specific version by Bulić, though.  Chzz  ►  10:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP-FROM AUTHOR okay on the you tube, i have found a link direct from the cultural group and replace, that ends the discussion on that criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.39.197.14 (talk) 11:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC) — 14.39.197.14 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. not a VOTEmore on videos and validity of links. fair criticism of the youtube i had pre-checked the following--The youtube video is also from the cultural org and vice versa, the name of the group is referenced at the top of the video, everybody is acknowledged. not a VOTE-from author-It is a notable folksong and i am not a member of the referenced org in answer to first critique to include for deletion in the first place, but the process of discussion has refined the links so it was valuable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Protobaltoslav (talk • contribs) 12:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Generally ANY Youtube video is not considered to be a reliable source regardless of who posts it. Also, a video of a group singing a song is not considered to be a reliable source because it does not show how notable the song is. It only shows that the song exists and nobody is questioning that. We're questioning how notable the song is. Notability would be shown by proving that the song is notable in the culture by providing sources such as books that mention that the song is particularly noteworthy in the culture, news articles mentioning the cultural value of the song (that aren't vanity pieces), as well as articles put out by noteworthy and reliable groups. Again, providing links to videos does not prove notability unless it's a clip of a news story or program that is giving history about the song in a context that would prove that it is notable. A clip of someone interviewing a member of a group that happens to be performing the song generally isn't considered noteworthy. So far nothing has been given to show notability as far as this song goes. Please read WP:RELIABLE SOURCES to see what would be considered a reliable source. Not every folk song is considered noteworthy. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTETokyo it doesn't need a news article, may I explain the position of these organisations in culture of the region to you. Basically, if the cultural organisation is singing it, it is a folk song. And it is of noteriety because it is a people's asset and or tale, that's why it is sung. In this case the soundtrack is also on youtube, but that does not belittle the track or the position of such a folk song for people (think the history of ring a ring a rosie, for example, may include a sound byte of the song for the historical description of the experience of Bubonic Plague). As for origin, meanings etc (that I invited but cannot fully inform) that takes group input, the goal rather than the substandard youtube debate, from earliest backroom dusty music scores and even older minds. Just as 'ring a ring a rosie,' tells a tale, this one does too, its just that we need experts for that. The organisations themselves may assist. So in short, that should assist with notability. I believe ring a ring a rosie is in multilingual wiki, this song also has a place by same virtue. Does that help understanding in terms of concept and explanation of the function of these organisations? Ring a ring a rosie has some folklore volume references, as thats the way that Anglosaxons (etc in England) recorded their oral histories, in the Balkans it was done and they are to some extent still kept via groups sing songs, the equivalent of a volume on folklore, and likely this song does too, I just couldn't complete them all, it needs collaboration so I thank whomever for including this discussion in the Serbia group. But I don't see that the notability criticism holds given the explanation, others may differ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.144.53.61 (talk) 00:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC) NoteSince the substandard youtube origin debate included Croatian claims, maybe we should include it in that discussion. I think, I'm not an expert, that the analysis of the song will be the cultural determiner, once the groups contribute the groundwork dates and socio-historics, more so than other current indicators.But you can see that amongst at least two major populations, the song is of note, and worthiness to lay claim to and discuss, by that very discussion.01:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)protobaltoslav — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.144.53.61 (talk) [reply]

  • Comment: I'm going to bold the next statement because it's so very important: Everything on Wikipedia needs to have reliable sources to prove notability. You can't say that because Group A sings this song that it's proof of notability. You have to have at least some form of reliable documentation to back that up. Even if it's a children's textbook that talks about the history of the song and of other cultural songs, that's something. (It doesn't have to be a news article- I mentioned that because it's just an example of what is considered a reliable source.) You can't put something up on Wikipedia without anything Wikipedia considers to be a reliable source and claim that it doesn't require sources because "it's so well known". It doesn't work that way. At this point all you have to do is find reliable sources and the youtube video isn't going to be considered a reliable source at all, let alone enough to keep the article. I really recommend that you look into finding other sources to prove notability. Even Ring around the Rosie has at least 20 reliable sources to prove notability. You might want to try contacting the cultural group and asking them for resources that can prove notability. They should undoubtedly have books and documents that can be listed on here to prove notability of this song. Again, Youtube videos are never really considered reliable sources because that content is user generated. Anyone can add the videos to Youtube and unless it's a phenomenon that started on Youtube, such as Rebecca Black's Friday, Youtube videos in general aren't really encouraged even as far as external links go. (Because anyone can upload them and if it's notable enough to be on Wikipedia, the video will also be available on a more official site.) The general consensus is that if something is notable enough to be on Wikipedia, it will have at least 2-3 reliable sources that are not placed on youtube. As said above, it'd have to be a pretty extreme example for a Youtube video to be considered a reliable source and a video of a cultural group singing a song does not cut it. Even if the video was on the cultural group's website, that does not prove the song's notability because it doesn't give any history of the song. Even if the group posted a video of Madonna singing the song at their cultural festival, that doesn't show us any notability about the song. Now if there was an article where someone were to talk about the song's history, that would be considered notable. Please see WP:NSONGS to see what is needed to prove notability for a song. I have no doubt that the song is probably culturally valuable, but we need proof in the form of reliable sources. We can't go on the say-so of various people unless that say-so is in the form of reliable sources WP:RS. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Additional: Just to let you know, this isn't about me being stubborn or anything to that extent. This is just about standard Wikipedia requirements. Every article needs reliable sources, no matter what the subject or how obvious the notability might seem to you. We require this of the new songs as well as the old ones.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

reply to additional I get it, in the interim before the group collaboration including the likes of musical score dates or sources, any qualified, ethnologist, anthropologist or unqualified person would accept that FOLK are legitiamate sources for folk songs and that cultural organisations add additional institutional legitimacy to any folk song, saying etc. It does need more work, it has been invited in the discussion. What's there is a valid starting point I think. I don't think you are being stubborn, I just don't think you are an anthropologist in terms of perspective or can see the driving point of the article, to refine the discussion that exists. The existing sources are legit and reliable for a folk song until proven otherwise by another source, scholarly or otherwise. The sources are fine until they are refined with more in terms of a starting point. -Certainly there is room for improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.5.122.94 (talk) 06:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC) — 59.5.122.94 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • This has nothing to do about me being an anthropologist or not and the existing sources are not fine as far as proving notability for Wikipedia standards. What is required or not required in various anthropological is irrelevant. What is important here is what Wikipedia requires as reliable sources and currently none of the sources on the page meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. If you could find even one mention of what Wikipedia considers a reliable source, it'd be a far different story. The problem here is that even though it's clear that the song exists and is of value to at least one group of people, there are no reliable sources to back those claims up. The page cannot exist without those sources. If you would like to sign up for an account and userfy the article until you can find those sources, I have no problem with that. Until then we can't have an article kept on the hopes that eventually someone will find a reliable source and add it. That's just not how Wikipedia works. Tokyogirl79 (talk)tokygirl79

noteadded BLOG POST and some more info and news articles from various sources citing popularity and added geographical description to aid assisting the ethnic origin discussion and analysis-not in English and still looking — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.129.25.226 (talk) 10:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Reliable sources not in evidence demonstrating significant coverage independent of the subject as per WP:N, nor specifically "an ample supply of lore, much of it in secondary sources such as music journals and academic articles" as expected for a notable traditional song per WP:MUSIC. DGaw (talk) 04:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

note added paper explaining one possible reason for absence of secondary resources in 'google,' 'yahoo,' 'Croatian Journals Online(HRCAK search),' etc. I anticipate that as in the council of Europe paper that in time it will be prioritized to be available online. Someone somewhere probably has some access to more info in hard copy and all contributors to the deletion discussion will be grateful if you come forward...please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.187.73.214 (talk) 07:21, 26 November 2011 (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/Gori_gora_gori_borovina&oldid=1070804749"