Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Signature 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. –MuZemike 06:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Signature song[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Signature song (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources can be found that treat the subject itself in any detail. There is already an article titled song. Wiktionary has a definition for the adjective form of 'signature' on the off chance that a reader is unfamiliar with the word. This article is unnecessary for further clarification and only functions as a list of songs about which a reliable source has used the term 'signature'. If that's good enough for an article, why not create an article titled Great song wherein we list songs called 'great' by a reliable source? Most of the prose could be copied from this article with some minor tweaking. Why not Terrible song? Etc. At least One-hit wonder can be supported by chart positions... Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 20:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A quick search indicates that the concept is well-used in sources for particular artists, e.g. that My Way became Sinatra's signature song. There seem to be systematic studies too. For example, I find reference in a bibliography to Theme Songs of the Big Band Era which is "An alphabetical list of over 850 big band leaders and ensembles. Each entry includes the title of their theme or signature song(s)." Warden (talk) 10:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any evidence that that book (or any of the systematic studies you may have found) treats the concept of a signature song in any detail, or is it just a list? Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 12:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with song. A lot of the information in the article is either unnecessary, original research or unsourced. The main aspects of the article can be merged with the previously mentioned article (which, for the record, is shorter than this article). Till I Go Home (talk) 10:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would not be a good target because that's about vocal music and some signatures are just music. The essence of the topic is the association with particular artists not the style of the music. Theme music has something to say about this topic too but that is even more general and is more about the association with other media such as TV series. All of these articles are weak and require more development before we can say that one is dominant. Warden (talk) 10:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you also advocate the creation of articles/lists about "great" songs and "terrible" songs? And why stop there? Surely we can compile scores of song lists based on adjectives that reliable sources throw around. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 02:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
None of those are about the concept of the Worst song or Best song. You seem to be arguing to change this article to a list. (The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time is about a magazine article, not the concept.) - SummerPhD (talk) 14:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While there are numerous sources using the term, we do not have substantial coverage about the concept. As for the idea of a List of signature songs, we have a fundamental problem in that there are few examples that are universally (or nearly so) agreed upon. While most might agree that Tony Bennett is best known for leaving his heart in San Francisco, the overwhelming majority of cases are not so clear. Check a dozen sources for the Beatles or Rolling Stones and we'll have a dozen "one song (or, in some cases, one of a few songs) that a popular and well-established singer or band is most closely identified with or best known for". - SummerPhD (talk) 14:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Seriously? Ask the average person about Frank Sinatra, Bob Hope, Ella Fitzgerald, Bruce Springsteen, etc., and 99% of the time, they will agree on the song. And there's no real restriction on the number of signature songs an individual can have, just that they've made them theirs. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm, I wish I had a reliable source to check your criterion against. Oh, and "Theme from New York, New York", "Thanks for the Memory", "A-Tisket, A-Tasket" and "Born in the U.S.A." – how'd I do? Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 00:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  08:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I say Keep. Such a widely used concept must be analysed somewhere - it's just a case of digging. I did manage to find this strange mystical use of the phrase: "Within fifteen minutes you will probably have the essence of your own signature song, one known only to you and faery. Your signature song will identify you and help empower you when you go to faery to gather healing knowledge and..."[3]. Then there's this: A Guide to Famous Singers' Signature Song, Vol. 1 - seems like a pretty indepth analysis to me. What about "perennially savvy vaudevillean turns the cult formula, like the signature-song, inside-out"[4] In "A guide to popular music reference books: an annotated bibliography", "Each entry includes the title of their theme or signature song(s)". (along with their record company name and issue number etc, that is, it is considered just as inportant)[5].--Coin945 (talk) 09:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what its worth, the book may have extra info as well that we can use. BTW having a reread of the article, I think it does an awesome job, at least for a work-in-progress, for an article about signature songs. Im not sure what else you could really write about such a topic. Perhaps history of the term?--Coin945 (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm certain the book has no original content. The whole idea of those publishers is to make a buck without doing any work. At any rate, no matter how much we may want to believe the "signature song" concept has been analyzed somewhere, no one has shown that it has. And one of the reasons for deletion reads: "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline". That describes this article, which fails WP:GNG because no reliable sources "address the subject directly in detail". Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 19:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold on a sec... so if that company published that book, can Wikipedia be sued for having the exact same text as a copyrighted book, that it, isn't it COPYVIO? That would just be too twisted..... Also, I honestly do think it is just a case of digging. I just scraped the surface. I don't know how much you have done, but I do have hopes that there are some sources out there. Who knows, i might be wrong, but theres only one way to find out.--Coin945 (talk) 19:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia holds the copyright, the content is just available under a license that allows others to use it for profit. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 19:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I misunderstood. I thought that as free knowledge, nobody owned it.--Coin945 (talk) 19:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know it's irrelevant to this article, but I must correct Two Hearted River's statement. The copyright is held by the individual editor(s) who wrote the article, not by Wikipedia or its owner, the Wikimedia Foundation. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Coin945. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 12:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Signature Tune is not strictly the same as a signature song, but it can be included in the same page.[6][7][8][9][10][11]--Coin945 (talk) 02:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I know TV Tropes isn't notable but it's fun to read what they have to say anyway: [12]. Also, what about these sources I have compiled:
  1. We are familiar with the designation “signature” in our culture: a chef has a signature dish, a singer a signature song, an instrumentalist a signature style, an artist a signature color or angle of vision.,
  2. It's his signature song, and as far as I am concerned it could be...Texas's signature song.,
  3. "Born to Run" would become Springsteen's signature song, an accessible anthem that most compactly captured the themes of the sympathetic loser yearning for romance and escape.,
  4. His composition Stormy Monday Blues was his signature song, and artists all over the world were singing it.,
  5. “The Year's at the Spring”was a favorite among singers,both ama- teur and professional, and became a signature song for late Victorian divas like Emma Eames.
  6. “His Eye Is on the Sparrow” became her signature song, re- maining her best-loved song throughout her life. ,
  7. "The Bird" would become Acuffs signature song, and he'd sing it many more thousands of times before his death,
  8. since 1927, “Ol' Man River” had become the signature song of the show and a deeply resonant reflection on American history.,
  9. The band's signature song, “Angel of Death” has been their show closer since 1988's South of Heaven tour.,
  10. When I was a professional singer 'My Funny Valentine' was my signature song. Whenever I sang it, it brought tears to my eyes. I knew this song contained some special meaning for me but I wasn't sure what that was,
  11. Here is a clear case where the evolution of general composerly style and the treatment of a single signature song tell different stories,
  12. Within a year of its publication, "Oh! Susanna" became the signature song of the gold- rush miners and the slogan of the westward-bound pioneers,
  13. Shirley Temple and her signature song "The Good Ship Lollipop" remain synonymous with tap nearly fifty years after she made her last film.--Coin945 (talk) 03:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem remains. Each of these mentions a song that the author believes is a particular artist's "signature song". However, this article is purportedly about the concept of a signature song. None of these discuss the concept in any meaningful way. This is the difference between Fruit and List of fruits. The first one (which this article would strive to mirror) gives various definitions of what a fruit is, a history of the various meanings, information on how fruits develop, info on the importance of fruits in human and animal diets, etc. The other lists fruits. Is an apple a fruit? Yes, it goes in the list article. Is "My Way" Frank Sinatra's signature song? No, it's "Young at Heart". No, it's "All the Way". No, it's "It Was a Very Good Year". No, it's "Strangers in the Night". No, it's "New York, New York". Etc. You might as well have a List of the Most Bestest Superheroes Eva. Can we find sources saying this, that or the other song is Sinatra's signature song? Sure. We can also find reliable sources saying Wonder Woman is the best superhero ever. This does not mean we should list either or start an article about The most kick-ass women in fiction. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, that first link is exactly why this page is not necessary. We are familiar with the "signature" concept, so there's no need for further elaboration of song in a separate article. It's the same reason we don't have pages for 24kt gold, Northern Hemisphere country, and silver automobile. (Sorry for disregarding WP:BEANS.) Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 04:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary, I would have thought that all those references to how important signature songs can be: 2 says that his sigsong became the sigsong of his state - it became that important, 3 says sigsongs are important anthems, 4 says that they become standards, 5 seems to establish the age of the term (reference to Vic era), 6 equates sig song to most loved song, 7 sig song = song they sing the most, 8 sig song had "a deeply resonant reflection on American history", so on and so forth. Also, with the case of knowing exactly what someone's signature song is, well this isn't some arbitrary decision. Various sources write about artist's sig songs. We record verafiable sources. IF that means saying: NYT said Michael Jackson's song is Thriller, while The Rolling Stones says that it is Bad etc... no problem there...--Coin945 (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're extending those conclusions to all "signature songs", which from quick scans of the text is quite obviously unwarranted. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 13:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying that these can be cited as examples of the importance of sig songs, in that they ARE "yadda yadda yadda", and ARE able to cause "yadda yadda yadda", and are still cherished "yada yadda yadda" years after __. I will put that info into the article under "Importance" when I get have free time.--Coin945 (talk) 01:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well understood concept. Fully referenced. Not sure what the problem is...  The Steve  12:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is a work in progress. Yes, the concept may not be entirely verefiable, but certain bits are, like those given in the sources above. For such a widely used term, it is utterly ridiculous for it to be deleted. This article, I imagine would be great use to many people and as long as it gives correct info, it isn't doing any harm. I say leave the poor article alone. If in the future, we can find better osurces, awesome, but theres no point in getting rid of valuable work that is interesting and important to many readers of Wikipedia.--Coin945 (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, Wikipedia is a work in progress. Yes, we have numerous examples of someone calling a song a "signature song". However, we do not have any reliable sources discussing this vague, though common, term. We can certainly find sources calling various people a "Pain in the ass" or various days the "Best day ever", but those uses are also not discussed in reliable sources. Heck, we could start an article Tall buildings and list every building any reliable source has ever called "tall". However, we've generally agreed not to do that because the resulting "articles" (if you can call them that) are worthless collections of random mentions of a vague concept. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiable "mentions of a vague concept" are perfectly acceptable in an encyclopedia. Listing many songs that could possibly be Frank Sinatra's signature song is unencyclopedic, I grant you, but if we collect sources like: "New York Times described Moon River as Frank Sinatra's signature song, and it became his most cherished song", or "Mary Belipop writes in her book "Made It Up For Argument's Sake" that Frank Sinatra's hit "Come Fly With Me" became a standard in all his concerts following its initial recording in 1957, and has since become his signature song" --> we can then say: NYT argues ______, while Mary Belipop suggests ______. Nothing wrong there. (P.S two of those articles you suggested are actually blue-linked :P)--Coin945 (talk) 00:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Check out the blue links and keep your tongue in your mouth...) "Pain in the ass", then, awaits your attention. "New York Times described John Doe as a pain in the ass and he continues to annoy people today", or "Jane Smith writes in her book "Made It Up For Argument's Sake" that John Doe became a standard pain in the ass following his first letter to the Times, and he has since become a bigger pain in the ass" --> we can then say: NYT argues ______, while Mary Belipop suggests ______. Nothing wrong there? Something very wrong there: There are no reliable sources discussing the concept of a "signature song" which is supposedly the topic of this article. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I don't accept your analogy as being valid. In my example, the two sources gave example of why sig songs are important, what their legacy can be, why they are so much more significant that their other songs etc. - important information. In your example, your quote do not establish any sort of importance with the phrase (or even the concept) of being a "pain in the ass". Rather, they just give examples of people who are. Well.... the first quote could be used to help define the term as it establishes that being a pain in the ass = annoying people, but I see no merit in your second sentence. It doesn't explain at all why the concept of being a pain in the ass in important, what it's definition is etc. All you could really say with that in the Wikipedia article is that "In some cases, this quality of being a pain in the ass can worsen over time etc." - in that respect, the info possibly has some merit. (P.S in case you didn't realise, what I said before was a joke. I know neither of those two actually link to the concepts you were referring to! :D--Coin945 (talk) 04:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The concept is certainly discussed - here and here, for instance. However, I didn't have time to check the 20000 results for signature song in Google books alone. Also here and here - sources used for Cancion insignia  The Steve  07:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou The Steve! While the other sources you provided were fleeting references, the final source you gave is exactly what we've been looking for. It establishes both how the concept of sig songs were created and also why they are so important to the music industry. I can't be bothered to type the whole thing here, but read pg. 157 at this page.
Also here [13], perhaps here [14], here [15], here [16], here [17], here [18], this is great: [19], here [20], here [21], and here [22].
Please just take away this ridiculous AfD notice, and give us a chance to actually work on the article instead of wasting all this time talking about it. All this yapping isn't helping Wikipedia one bit. We've given you all the sources you need, we've done the hard part, now all we have to is stuff the info into the article. Hey presto, everyone's happy. This AfD is starting to grow tiresome.......--Coin945 (talk) 11:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Every one of the mentions you and The Steve have found is fleeting. Every one of them. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 11:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, they are fleeting, but so what? Are you seriously telling me that 14 cites in reliable sources about the concept/definition and 20,000 examples in books isn't good enough for wikipedia?! That doesn't seem like a good reason to delete to me...  The Steve  02:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. If an idea as old and well-known as this one is not well-documented, then WP ought to pick up the ball and fix that. Sig-songs are common currency in identifying artists whose names may be under-familiar, but whose memorable performances made the song 'theirs'. "Peggy Lee?" "Sang Fever". "Oh yeah." There are countless examples.
    Honestly, though I don't have time to prove it, I find it hard to believe that that sig-songs haven't discussed many times by pop music experts. But if that's not the case, it's great that WP now-and-then need to blaze trails. In fact that's one of the things that makes WP uniquely valuable for many people ill-served by previous, more formal and/or space-limited so-called 'references'. Articles like this serve the very people underserved by the less egalitarian tomes of yesteryear.
    I also disagree with the idea of integrating it with "theme song" ... while there may be some parallels, they're two quite different ideas. Twang (talk) 08:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. On a quick Google Books for "encyclopedia "signature song" I got 224 finds... proof enough that the concept is in widespread use. Will it take work to document it in each case? - sure. Is there some rush? Twang (talk) 08:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the idea "is not well-documented" Wikipedia should not have an article on it. That's how Wikipedia works. Yeah, I'm sure searching for "signature song" on Google turned up a lot of hits. Google books turns up 179,000 hits for "pain in the ass". "Ugly sweater" turns up 688. Bottom line, Wikipedia does not "blaze trails". - SummerPhD (talk) 22:20, 11 December 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/Signature_song&oldid=1136108200"