Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/These Colours Don't Run
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. I'm going to leave a redirect to A Matter of Life and Death (album). Neil ム 13:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These Colours Don't Run[edit]
AfDs for this article:
- These Colours Don't Run (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
De-prod'ed without any comment. I'd previously added the Prod template. This is an album track from a notable album by a highly notable band. However, as we know, notability is not inherited and I don't see anything much establishing notability here. There are a number of these tracks, and I'm listing each one at AfD so that they can be discussed on their own merits, rather than risking a trainwreck. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - The articles contain additional information on songs from a notable album by a notable band. The additional information that would be to long if it was added to the albums page. The fact that they aren't singles does not mean they are not notable and should not have articles. We have an article for pretty much every single Metallica song because they are well known and there is enough information to have an article for each individual song, the same would be true of Iron Maiden.--E tac 17:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unless reliable sources are provided. Yes, adding this information to the album article would swell it to an unmanagable size, but is the information completely relevent? Are these songs independently notable? Have there been reliable sources written about them? Adding information about every shop in Barrow in Furness (an article I am working on passively at the moment) would swell it- does that mean that every shop should have an article? No, not unless the shops have notability of their own. And, as ever, the fact other songs have articles is irrelevent. You don't like it? Nominate them. J Milburn 19:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- When you cite WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS you should bother to explain why these articles are "crap". Yes the information is relevant, if it wasn't then multiple editors wouldn't have taken the time to find it and choose to create articles about it on wikipedia. I like the Metallica song articles because they are informative to anyone wishing to find out more about the songs, there meanings, etc... so why would I nominate them? You seem to be the one with the problem so why don't you nomminate them. Also I regret to inform this to you but heavy metal music is not about having hit singles, and the bands don't just make albums with a bunch of filler crap and 1 or 2 "notable" songs. Many songs that are not singles are very popular amongst fans and they would definately want to read about them. Rather than quoting policy like a parrot use some logic and ask yourself if this article would help to more deeply inform someone who is interested in it's subject and if many people would want to read about it.--E tac 19:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- E tac, I don't know if you remember, but we have clashed before over metal related articles. And, if you take a look at my 'prize' articles, you will note I write about metal bands far, far less notable than Iron Maiden, so yes, I understand that metal is not about top ten hits. I cite WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS because one of your arguments IS that other 'crap' exists, in the form of the Metallica songs. Now, I may have a problem with those articles, but, quite frankly, that is irrelevent, let us judge this article on its own merits. I explained why these articles are 'crap', as did the nominator. There does not appear to be any notability, and you are yet to provide any evidence of whether there is, whether or not metal is about achievements and success. How can we write an article without sources? As for your 'multiple editors' argument- that's just irrelevent. If multiple editors write about something, it does not change the fact that it doesn't meet our policies. Please bear in mind when talking to editors that we also know what we are talking about- I know both about Wikipedia policies, and about the heavy metal scene and music, so please try not to be condescending. A final point- these songs (or some of them) may be notable. However, without sources to verify this, there is no way we should have articles on them, otherwise they will be based entirely upon original research. J Milburn 23:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No I didn't say what you are saying I said. I never said the Metallica song articles are crap. I said. "they are informative to anyone wishing to find out more about the songs, there meanings, etc...". Not that they are crap. I think they should be on wikipedia and fro similar reasons I think these should be as well. If you think the Metallica articles are crap then nominate them, I don't and I don't think these are either. Then you claim there are no sources and everything is original research, the fact that each of the individual songs were discussed in a major music magazine and that is sourced asserts notability. Have you even looked at the articles?--E tac 15:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This particular song has a passing mention in an interview, (a primary source) yes, I took that into account- that does not assert notability. As for the other point- when I cite the essay regarding the 'other crap exists' article, I am not calling any article crap, nor am I suggesting that you are doing so. I am referring to your 'there are other articles like this' argument, which is invalid. We are not discussing those other articles, we are discussing this one. J Milburn 15:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So we are not allowed to discuss similar articles in order to show an articles usefulness?--E tac 16:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec) Not in the way you are doing so. The fact that there are other, similar articles is of no real relevence, because, of course, you will then have to justify why they should be kept. In some cases, comparing to others is fine- comparing to The Beatles discography, a good article, or Category:Discographies to demonstrate that a discography article is not an 'indiscriminate, usless list', for instance. However, as you have no doubt noticed, many Metallica songs have now been nominated for deletion too. Take a read of the essay I linked to in the first place- the point of the essay is to save people such as myself from explaining why what you are saying is not as relevent as it may at first sound. No, it's not policy, but neither are my arguments, and I should hope you don't ignore them. The essay speaks sense, and is definately worth a read. J Milburn 16:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I see all the Metallica song articles have now been tagged as well. Hey I have an idea why don't we just delete all the valid heavy metal information of wikipedia since it isn't important enough to have an article.--E tac 16:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As the lack of sources is demonstrating, this is not relevent information. Relevent information has reliable sources discussing it. J Milburn 16:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not relevant to who? --E tac 16:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To Wikipedia. And don't scream 'oh, that's because Wikipedia hates metal'- how on Earth do you expect us to write articles on subjects without sources? I know of some excellent articles on heavy metal songs- "Angel of Death" and "Enter Sandman" spring to mind, but without substantial sources, we just can't write an article. J Milburn 18:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So what makes Angel of Death so relevant? Because it is about a nazi death doctor and they play it live? Just because the article is of higher quality does not make the subject any more notable. Tell me why Angel of Death is more notable then this or any of the other songs on this album.--E tac 19:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because there have been reliable sources written about it? J Milburn 21:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Where? It isn't the main focus of nearly everything that is referenced on it's page but rather is a "passing mention in an interview" or review.--E tac 05:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's the case, then you're welcome to nominate it for deletion. Given, however, that it's a featured article, I'm willing to bet that it isn't the case. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well rather than making bets and other wild accusations you should look into it for yourelf.--E tac 07:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can assure you that I will in due time. I'm currently focusing my efforts on the songs I've listed at AfD right now, but I'll investigate everything on that album at some point. Again, nobody's stopping you from nominating it for deletion if you don't feel that the sources establish notability. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would I want to nominate an article for a song by a notable artist on a notable album that by the way as you pointed out is also a featured article and provides the reader with exactly what they are looking for which would be more information on the song. Also if that article meets the criteria for being a featured article, many of these Metallica and Maiden song articles are at least worthy of being on wikipedia right?--E tac 08:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't follow your reasoning there at all. Firstly, you've been arguing that the article on "Angel of Death" isn't adequately sourced and could therefore be nominated for deletion. I've responded that such a nomination would be unlikely to succeed, given that it is a featured article (and therefore has been looked at by any number of editors in order to establish that it is adequately sourced). I've also said that, in due time, I'll investigate the articles on Slayer's albums and see if there are non-notable songs which have articles. I'm just not doing that right at the moment. However, if you're complaining that the sources are only passing mentions, that suggests that perhaps it isn't notable, and I won't mind a bit if anyone nominates a non-notable song which I was going to nominate someway down the track. In relation to the second part of your comment, that doesn't follow at all. "Angel of Death" is a featured article because there are sources demonstrating its notability. Why that means that any other article about a song by Slayer, Metallica, Iron Maiden or the band my friends are in should stay is beyond me. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not saying that at all. I believe it is sourced fine, although the song is not the focus of the sites being sourced and just briefly mentioned which you basically said doesn't account for much of anything on wikipedia.--E tac 08:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. In that case, are you prepared to wait for me to investigate that (and the rest of Slayer's discography) in a few weeks? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If I'm not will you refrain from doing so?--E tac 08:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Will I refrain from investigating the articles on Slayer's songs and proposing deletion of non-notable songs? No, I won't refrain from doing that. Why should non-notable subjects have articles? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well then why did you ask me if I am prepared?--E tac 09:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because you were making a big thing of the sources on that article. What I was saying was that I'll look into it later, and I was wondering whether perhaps that might bring the discussion here back to the article at hand. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well this article currently has no sources but I have read one of them and heard similar stuff to the other magazine article. I don't know how to properley source something like that though but I am sure they are legit.--E tac 09:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the sources are available online, just give me the link on my Talk page and I'll set up the citation template, so that you can use it on future articles. There are citation templates for offline sources too, but obviously online ones are easier to double-check.
- Well this article currently has no sources but I have read one of them and heard similar stuff to the other magazine article. I don't know how to properley source something like that though but I am sure they are legit.--E tac 09:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because you were making a big thing of the sources on that article. What I was saying was that I'll look into it later, and I was wondering whether perhaps that might bring the discussion here back to the article at hand. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well then why did you ask me if I am prepared?--E tac 09:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Will I refrain from investigating the articles on Slayer's songs and proposing deletion of non-notable songs? No, I won't refrain from doing that. Why should non-notable subjects have articles? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If I'm not will you refrain from doing so?--E tac 08:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. In that case, are you prepared to wait for me to investigate that (and the rest of Slayer's discography) in a few weeks? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not saying that at all. I believe it is sourced fine, although the song is not the focus of the sites being sourced and just briefly mentioned which you basically said doesn't account for much of anything on wikipedia.--E tac 08:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't follow your reasoning there at all. Firstly, you've been arguing that the article on "Angel of Death" isn't adequately sourced and could therefore be nominated for deletion. I've responded that such a nomination would be unlikely to succeed, given that it is a featured article (and therefore has been looked at by any number of editors in order to establish that it is adequately sourced). I've also said that, in due time, I'll investigate the articles on Slayer's albums and see if there are non-notable songs which have articles. I'm just not doing that right at the moment. However, if you're complaining that the sources are only passing mentions, that suggests that perhaps it isn't notable, and I won't mind a bit if anyone nominates a non-notable song which I was going to nominate someway down the track. In relation to the second part of your comment, that doesn't follow at all. "Angel of Death" is a featured article because there are sources demonstrating its notability. Why that means that any other article about a song by Slayer, Metallica, Iron Maiden or the band my friends are in should stay is beyond me. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would I want to nominate an article for a song by a notable artist on a notable album that by the way as you pointed out is also a featured article and provides the reader with exactly what they are looking for which would be more information on the song. Also if that article meets the criteria for being a featured article, many of these Metallica and Maiden song articles are at least worthy of being on wikipedia right?--E tac 08:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can assure you that I will in due time. I'm currently focusing my efforts on the songs I've listed at AfD right now, but I'll investigate everything on that album at some point. Again, nobody's stopping you from nominating it for deletion if you don't feel that the sources establish notability. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well rather than making bets and other wild accusations you should look into it for yourelf.--E tac 07:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's the case, then you're welcome to nominate it for deletion. Given, however, that it's a featured article, I'm willing to bet that it isn't the case. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Where? It isn't the main focus of nearly everything that is referenced on it's page but rather is a "passing mention in an interview" or review.--E tac 05:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because there have been reliable sources written about it? J Milburn 21:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So what makes Angel of Death so relevant? Because it is about a nazi death doctor and they play it live? Just because the article is of higher quality does not make the subject any more notable. Tell me why Angel of Death is more notable then this or any of the other songs on this album.--E tac 19:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To Wikipedia. And don't scream 'oh, that's because Wikipedia hates metal'- how on Earth do you expect us to write articles on subjects without sources? I know of some excellent articles on heavy metal songs- "Angel of Death" and "Enter Sandman" spring to mind, but without substantial sources, we just can't write an article. J Milburn 18:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not relevant to who? --E tac 16:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As the lack of sources is demonstrating, this is not relevent information. Relevent information has reliable sources discussing it. J Milburn 16:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I see all the Metallica song articles have now been tagged as well. Hey I have an idea why don't we just delete all the valid heavy metal information of wikipedia since it isn't important enough to have an article.--E tac 16:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec) Not in the way you are doing so. The fact that there are other, similar articles is of no real relevence, because, of course, you will then have to justify why they should be kept. In some cases, comparing to others is fine- comparing to The Beatles discography, a good article, or Category:Discographies to demonstrate that a discography article is not an 'indiscriminate, usless list', for instance. However, as you have no doubt noticed, many Metallica songs have now been nominated for deletion too. Take a read of the essay I linked to in the first place- the point of the essay is to save people such as myself from explaining why what you are saying is not as relevent as it may at first sound. No, it's not policy, but neither are my arguments, and I should hope you don't ignore them. The essay speaks sense, and is definately worth a read. J Milburn 16:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So we are not allowed to discuss similar articles in order to show an articles usefulness?--E tac 16:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This particular song has a passing mention in an interview, (a primary source) yes, I took that into account- that does not assert notability. As for the other point- when I cite the essay regarding the 'other crap exists' article, I am not calling any article crap, nor am I suggesting that you are doing so. I am referring to your 'there are other articles like this' argument, which is invalid. We are not discussing those other articles, we are discussing this one. J Milburn 15:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No I didn't say what you are saying I said. I never said the Metallica song articles are crap. I said. "they are informative to anyone wishing to find out more about the songs, there meanings, etc...". Not that they are crap. I think they should be on wikipedia and fro similar reasons I think these should be as well. If you think the Metallica articles are crap then nominate them, I don't and I don't think these are either. Then you claim there are no sources and everything is original research, the fact that each of the individual songs were discussed in a major music magazine and that is sourced asserts notability. Have you even looked at the articles?--E tac 15:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- E tac, I don't know if you remember, but we have clashed before over metal related articles. And, if you take a look at my 'prize' articles, you will note I write about metal bands far, far less notable than Iron Maiden, so yes, I understand that metal is not about top ten hits. I cite WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS because one of your arguments IS that other 'crap' exists, in the form of the Metallica songs. Now, I may have a problem with those articles, but, quite frankly, that is irrelevent, let us judge this article on its own merits. I explained why these articles are 'crap', as did the nominator. There does not appear to be any notability, and you are yet to provide any evidence of whether there is, whether or not metal is about achievements and success. How can we write an article without sources? As for your 'multiple editors' argument- that's just irrelevent. If multiple editors write about something, it does not change the fact that it doesn't meet our policies. Please bear in mind when talking to editors that we also know what we are talking about- I know both about Wikipedia policies, and about the heavy metal scene and music, so please try not to be condescending. A final point- these songs (or some of them) may be notable. However, without sources to verify this, there is no way we should have articles on them, otherwise they will be based entirely upon original research. J Milburn 23:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (Deliberate killing of indentation, which was getting ridiculous) E tac, should you provide sources for this article, that would only change my mind for this article. You will have to prove that each song is independently notable. J Milburn 16:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added some more to The Longest Day (song) although the Kerrang! interview image which is the same as the one this arrticle refers to is no longer on that URL.--E tac 19:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (Deliberate killing of indentation, which was getting ridiculous) E tac, should you provide sources for this article, that would only change my mind for this article. You will have to prove that each song is independently notable. J Milburn 16:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because it didn't chart too. Fee Fi Foe Fum 05:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This song was mainly written as concerns the Ozzfest controversy, and there have been reliable sources who have written about it. The problem is that the majority of Metal editors don't source their articles. LuciferMorgan 17:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If there are reliable sources out there, they should be in here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This article cites direct quotes from both Kerrang! magazine and Rhythm Magazine. Where is the proof of these quotes? How would I, as a first-time reader of this article, be able to verify these sources? In addition to mentioning these Magazine entries, they need to be cited using a cite template or reference template, with all pertinent information made available; i.e. publication date, page #, url if possible, etc. ♫ Cricket02 02:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. LuciferMorgan 17:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Kerrang! bit can be proved by looking at this. LuciferMorgan 17:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. LuciferMorgan 17:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and replace with a redirect to the album. Non-single songs are generally not notable. Verifiability also in question. Stifle (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:33, 1 October 2007 (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.