Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/El kondor pada

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 of the debate was no consensus. Shanel § 20:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

El kondor pada[edit]

Recreation of previously-deleted content under a different name. The original article was deleted because there are absolutely zero references to indicate that this song has any notability. The song article keeps getting recreated, keeps getting deleted because it's a recreation, and keeps getting undeleted with no valid reason, there are still no references to support the contention that this song is notable. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There would be references if the article wasn't deleted :) But, this is NOT recreation under different name, this is a new article. I'll start adding references promptly. --dcabrilo 18:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to comment on how "notable" it is, but the whole "recreation" stuff is false; the previous versions were totally different, consisting mainly of lyrics. This is actually an article. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 18:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The previous deletion by User:Samuel Blanning was done solely because nobody could come up with evidence of notability. It was not deleted because it was only lyrics, and that's false, anyway, there were several paragraphs of text. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what he said in his closure note. In any case, give other users here, who were not aware of the first vote in time, the chance to present evidence. I certainly will do exactly that. A little patientce please, and try to do things by the rules this time - both admins and users. BabaRera 19:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The song has a good number of Google hits, 80 for "el kondor pada" and even 254 for "el condor pada". Unfortunately they're almost all in Serbian, so I can't read them, but they do seem to indicate the song is notable. Serbia is not the most Internet-wired country, and half the country uses Cyrillic (including, presumably, the most anti-NATO parts, so there are probably even better searches that can be done), so over 300 links is notable. AnonEMouse 18:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • All we need is one reference, even in Serbian, which a Serbian speaker can vouch for and translate, but we can't even get that. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You got that. See the article --dcabrilo 18:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not yet. As I said, "can vouch for and translate". User:Zoe|(talk) 18:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I can vouch and translate, if you trust me :) See, the thing is that we can't link to most "references" because they include links to mp3 songs and lyrics, which are probably not most appropriate for us, because of the copyright issues. --dcabrilo 18:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • What does the site say about the song's notability? User:Zoe|(talk) 18:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • First of all, it's from '99, during the war, and it says that "Popular group Indexovo (radio) pozorište" already recorded songs and videos that are satirical, including El kondor pada, Ja sam ja, Oni su oni, and that they are available on mp3.co.yu :) Anyway, the song was recorded, apparently the video was shot too, it is notable. Indexovo radio pozorište is not as popular as Monthy Python, but it's nevertheless as popular as things in Serbia get. So please, do understand that standards of popularity for art in English cannot apply to other, relatively small, countries and cultures. --dcabrilo 18:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm sorry, existence is not notability. Did it get used at political rallies? Was it a popular hit? That is notability. And I'm talking about popularity within Serbian-speaking areas. How many records did it sell, and how does that compare to other record sales in the region? User:Zoe|(talk) 18:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • The song was released during the war, and as you can imagine, nobody kept top charts in the country at the time (not that they do otherwise). The song was used on protests, and was popular on the radio. The song, however, was later released on two compilations of songs by "Indexovo radio pozorište" (as they are not a musical group, they don't really release albums), namely "Gotov je!" and "Oproštajni koncert". Once again, sales are not kept track of in Serbia. As this is a political song, about a war, made during the war, it's not really normal to have it in your CD player. Prominent Serbian daily newspaper Glas Javnosti, released it as mp3 at [1]. The CD's where it was released are available on most Serbian on-line shops. You have to understand that the song was recorded during a freaking war, not much entertainment information was posted online at the time, and Serbia simply has no public record of sales or charts. --dcabrilo 19:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • (Not intentionally putting words in Zoe's mouth, but) ... and is there a page of text, anywhere, in any language, in print or on the Web, that we can reference, that says that? AnonEMouse 19:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Like I said before, I can't find online sources. The song was released during a war, Indexovo radio pozorište stopped working in 2003. But, do you really think that all of us who were in Serbia back than are lying? Everything in the article is verifiable, and if I were in Serbia and had extra time, I'd try to call radio stations and ask them. There are many notable things which simply aren't source online. However, the song is referenced a lot and apparantly everyone from Serbia here knows it. I personally hate the song, and I think making songs during a war is disrespectful to the victims, but I was nevertheless constantly exposed to it. And again, this is not a song by a popular band, it's a satirical, political song created by a theater group. There are no charts or sales numbers for it (mind that if you wanted such info for any Serbian music-related article, we wouldn't have any). --dcabrilo 19:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Merge - at this point I can accept the evidence that the Indexovo radio pozorište qualifies as a notable band/group. As that article is just a stub, it seems for me an ideal solution to merge this article into the article about the band.Balcer 02:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC) We have established at this point that the song exists, as evidenced by hits on Google, links to lyrics, article on Serbian Wikipedia etc. Sadly, no little evidence has been presented so far that the song is notable. I still look forward to some demonstration as to which criteria for notability, as listed in Wikipedia:Notability (music), are fulfilled by this song. If this is demonstrated, I will happily change my vote. Let me remind everyone here that just because a song is popular and well known, that does not by itself make it notable by Wikipedia standards. Balcer 18:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The policy you are quoting refers to bands, not songs. The evidence of notability of Indexovci is on the deletion talk page. Do you dispute notability of them? BabaRera 20:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was you who listed this article for deletion in the first place. However, proposed policy says you needed to proceed differently: Disputed notability

Where an article's given topic is deemed by a particular editor to be of little encyclopaedic value, or not noteworthy, it is best to assume good faith and first initiate a discussion upon the talk page of the article. An editor may also consider using either {references}, {importance} or {cite needed}. These steps may reveal sources which will allow more value to be placed upon the article. If no such discussion or sources ensue, an editor could consider listing the article for deletion

In the case of such articles being listed for deletion, such a listing occurs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, and Wikipedia editors should outline their reasons for believing the article's given topic to be of no encyclopaedic quality, namely that no independent sources of a reliable nature have been referenced. This will allow a balanced discussion to ensue on the topic's given value, and will determine its worth to Wikipedia. BabaRera 23:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was a different article, with a different title, with very different contents. Why are you bringing this up here? I did not list this article for deletion. Furthermore, inserting templates into the discussion clutters it up and is totally uncalled for. Balcer 23:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but this it the third creation of this article under as many titles. It's not my responsibility to contact a bad-faith recreater to let them know I've listed their improperly recreated article for deletion discussion. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The original vote closure was not at all well justified, and the admin behavior is being disputed. And also, not all interested parties were able to present arguments, as they were not aware of it. As for the notability of the song and band, I will provide some of the links shortly. BabaRera 19:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The discussion of possible sockpuppetry by this user is being conducted at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Samuel Blanning. Note that if he does have another username on English Wikipedia, by casting this vote he just violated the cardinal rule listed at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. To quote: Wikipedia uses a "one person, one vote" principle for all votes and similar discussions where individual preferences are counted in any fashion. Accordingly, alternate accounts are not permitted to vote in any Wikipedia election, nor are they allowed to participate in any similar procedure, such as polls and surveys or the discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Balcer 19:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this is relevant only if he used multiple accounts to vote in a single discussion. Zocky | picture popups 19:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By my reading, it states alternate accounts are not allowed to vote, under any circumstances. Balcer 19:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a vote. Also, your description of the ad-hominem paragraph that you started as "sockpuppetry discussion" is inaccurate and malicious. I am not violating any rule here. I am entitled to a voice, and the only thing which is not allowed is behavior which attempts to present that there are more than one person while there is one - certainly not what I am doing. I did not even vote in the first voting. I am not violating "one person one vote" principle even if this were a simple vote. I just want to put the things straight since the arguments for non-notability are weak indeed and I am going to rebuke them. BabaRera 19:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please, the rule specifically says "... or the discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion ". So, an alternate account cannot even contribute to discussion, much less vote. Balcer 19:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that page explicitly lists forbidden uses of alternate accounts. No one has claimed that the first item (circumvention of block) applies, and the other one says: Sockupuppet: An editor uses more than one account or changes IP to promote the appearance that other people (in reality the same person using multiple accounts) are involved in the same discussion. (should never be used) (bolding from that page). Zocky | picture popups 19:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not doing anything against the policy. Anonimous editors can present arguments in AfD, that is explicitly stated, so I have the right to a voice. BabaRera 20:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First I want to rebuke arguments about non-notability of the band. Since notability(music) criteria are referred to, let me quote what that wiki link actually says - and note that it has to satisfy at just one of the criteria. This is done in detail in a separate section below on the talk page . BabaRera 19:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Discussion moved by Zocky | picture popups 19:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not an article about a pop hit, which would need proof of "popularity" to be included. It's locally well-known political satirical song about a relevant historic event, one of the most notable examples of Serbian propaganda war against NATO in 1999. The lack of online sources which would say anything remarkable about the song is simply not reason enough to delete it. It would be great if somebody who actually knows the song could present any arguments for deleting the article. Zocky | picture popups 19:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The shooting down of one plane, which did not change the outcome of the war in the slightest, was a "historic event"? Please explain. Balcer 19:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The war certainly was, and shooting down the plane played a great role in propaganda war. --dcabrilo 19:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The war certainly was notable, and the only stealth fighter ever to be shot down is also a notable enough event in itself. Certainly our other appropriate articles consider the event notable. Zocky | picture popups 19:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an article from The Guardian, dated April 25, 1999, one month after the shootdown of the F-117. It is entitled Grim laughter in the rubble and it very specifically discusses the grim jokes that the Serbs are making about the war. It goes into detail about the particular jokes made about the F-117. Yet it containts no mention of this song, which was played "all over Serbia". Balcer 20:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interview with Predrag Koraksić Corax, why would he talk about that song? Perhaps he hated is as much as I did :) --dcabrilo 20:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe. But this reporter was presumably living in Belgrade in those days, talking to Serbs, listening to the radio etc. If this song was so hugely popular, why would he not mention it? Surely it would be juicy tidbit for his readers. Anyway, the point is, clearly one can find Western newspapers writing about Serbian humor during the war. So, presumably, if this song was popular, one ought to find a mention of it in some newspaper, somewhere. Balcer 20:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have not answered me weather you dispute the notability of Indexovci; there are no guidelines for notability of a song on wikipedia. However, a prominent song of a notable band should be notable. I can offer several links poiting to this. First link, from balkan repository project:[2] - song is included in 3 Index hits during NATO war.Second, they have published 'oprostajni koncert' on which this song is one of their 10 choices (the main hits of theirs) - it is a fairwall sort of compilation, so this testifies about the importance of the song for indexovci; you can google it, for instance here it is sold,[3]BabaRera 20:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What about Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines/Songs? Balcer 20:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To quote it: There is consensus that the vast majority of songs do not deserve an article specifically devoted to them. Most songs should redirect to another relevant article, such as on the album the song was originally released on, or the artist in question. Songs should only have an individual article if there is enough verifiable material to warrant a detailed article. If a song has a body of published criticism, the song should probably have an article on Wikipedia. Even if a song is otherwise notable, there is no reason to start an article which can only say the name of the song and who performed it.. Balcer 20:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, if that is a criterion, than it is more relevant that it has some individual relevance than that if it was a hit. The relevance of the song is that it was an expression of a spirit of defiance during the war. That is larger cultural connotation. This context is confirmed in the links provided - the balkan repository project about nato art, the article in Serbian above (explaining the context) as well as what people from the Balkans say. It is not just any song or even hit. It is a song with much more background and significance than just a name and who preformed it. The relevance of this song indeed is greater for Serbian (and other Balkan) people because of this larger social context - it was a phenomenon that it illustrates that makes it notable. This is what makes it different from other songs, and this is, as you can see, why people care about it. BabaRera 21:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what you quote is just a proposal and not an official guideline.
  • Delete untill some evidence of notability is prsented that passes both WP:V and WP:RS. Maybe an alternitive could be a merge into the article about the person who wrote it. ---J.S (t|c) 19:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Authors, publisher, date, place, etc. are all verifyable. It's also verifiable that [www.indexovci.com indexovci] have been a very prominent theatre troop in Serbia for 15 years, having produced numerous theater plays, songs and books. They're important enough that when the original lineup split in 2003, newspapers wrote articles about it and call them "perhaps the most well known satiricists in Serbia". Note that one of their most well known plays, Istočno od Rajha, gets even fewer useful hits on Google than this song. So, the question is, what more do you want? An article in English? Zocky | picture popups 20:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per J.smith. DGX 19:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Yes, I came because a friend informed me of this AfD. But, as a good Wikipedian, I would not engage in this AfD if I didn't find the song notable (I tend to dissapoint my friends who ask me to support an oppinion which I... well, do not support). I tried to find a guideline on notability of songs, but failed. Can anyone provide me with the link? As of notability of the song: I do not live in Serbia, nor am I of serbian descent, I live in Zagreb, Croatia and I went to Serbia in 2003 for the first time. Yet, I've heard about this song as a very popular one during the NATO bombardement. My 2 cents. --Dijxtra 20:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as songcruft. -Mask 20:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above users -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 21:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP, first of all, I've heard this song millions of times, even performed it at my elementary school and on many occasions. There is absolutely no reason to delete this song. If anyone wants me to send that song, I will do so, and if you play the song to any Serbian person, he will immediately recognize it. IT IS IDIOTIC THAT PEOPLE WHO NEVER HEARD OF THE SONG ARE DECIDING WETHER IT'S NOTABLE OR NOT. I've never heard of a bunch of US songs, but there are articles about those, and I don't complain. This song is a symbol of an era, this song was listened by EVERYONE in bomb shelters throughtout Serbia during the NATO aggression, and I was one of thousands of boys who had to spend that period in my life underground, songs were all we had. This one was the favourite one. --serbiana - talk 21:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The more arguments there are about how hugely important this song was, the more puzzling it is that so little information about it can be found from reputable sources. If the whole country was listening to this song during almost the whole war, could one not find any newspaper published at the time that would have mentioned this fact? This should not be difficult: many newspapers have archives which do go back so far. Could someone please try to search? Balcer 21:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... i'm not aware of many Serbian newspapers having archives which go that far. Zocky | picture popups 21:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The song is mentioned it the newspapers from the time, but a little remains at this date on the net. But there are still papers that mention it, and the references have been provided: [4] BabaRera 21:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. No references that prove its notability. It is a recreation of another today already deleted article. It seems like a desperate try to create an article about such unnotable song.--Mig11 21:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen the talk page of this deletion at all? What about the references provided there? The song is notable, according to [5], for instance. BabaRera 21:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jesus Christ, the song is the symbol of the bombing! Of course there are no mentions of the song in newspapers, do you think that Milosevic would let an anti-Milosevic band have publicity? And yet, the song spread like nuts, and I guess you're all supporting Milosevic on this one. --serbiana - talk 21:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are searching incorrectly. Try to put quotes in your search box, as in "el condor pada", and that will look for that specific word sequence, which is of course what we need for the song title. This way, we get on Google:
Much less impressive, to say the least. Balcer 21:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quotes??? Why you little... Why don't we just put question marks at each end and see how many hits we'll get. Internet doesn't follow YOUR rules, and not everyone puts quotes at the beginning and at the end of a certain title of the song. Your quotes mean nothing to me, just look at how many times the word el condor pada or el kondor pada appears when you type it in without the quotes. My golly, people will really think of anything to push their agenda... --serbiana - talk 22:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The quotes on google mean you search for exact phrase. So, indeed, there are less hits, but there are still hundreds of hits. And some links, like this one (a very relevant link) do not have "pada" at all: [6]
You misunderstand. Enclosing a sequence of words in quotes simply means that Google is looking for the words in that specific sequence. It does not mean that actual quotes must be present for there to be a hit. Your searches without quotes will return all pages that mention el, condor and pada somewhere in the text, not necessarily together. Please educate yourself on how Google works. Balcer 23:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that you qouted the number of hits in your google links incorrectly - there are 249 and 79 hits respectively, which is more than 3 times than what you put. Was that a honest mistake - if so, please correct it! BabaRera 23:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's possible. Google works in strange ways sometimes. When I click on the links I inserted, I get 77 and 25 (slight change from before), but I cannot guarantee that everyone will get the same thing. The point is that it's nowhere near 10,000, as was suggested in the comment I was responding to. Balcer 23:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you find some article supporting the notion that google works in mysterious ways? If not, I'll have to ask you to desist from making that argument. Profnjm 00:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I am no expert, but here is one possible explanation, based on information from Google platform. When a user does a Google search, he actually connects to one of the servers which is closest to him. These servers, located all over the world, are not completely synchronized, so it would be possible for two users located in different places to get a different number of hits. This is especially true in this case since, as the title "El Condor Pada" was recently created in Wikipedia and is now being picked up by all Wikipedia mirrors, the number of hits should be continually going up. So, that is one possible explanation. Am I certain this is the case? No, so take it for what it's worth. Feel free to change the number of hits to reflect what you are seeing at your end. Balcer 01:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
actually, there is non milosevic press and it does mention indexovci and the song. but it is really a little of it available even on the wayback machine - this was in 1999; a link above from the article in 1999 was provided, i am trying to dig up some more, but wayback machine is slow. Note that WP:N does not ask for such strong proofs of notability, and I would like to see if any other articles have been scrutinized with such attitude of disbelief. BabaRera 21:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about other songs, but this song is clearly different, since the main argument for having an article about it is its supposed great political and propaganda significance. Well, if it was so great and all, one ought to be able to find some mention of it in newspapers of the time, or in books about the Kosovo war. Balcer 21:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And the song is mentioned in such sources. However, the old newspapers, let alone books, are not available online (and why would all sources have to be online?) - try for instance searching for 1999 serbian newspapers on wayback machine (like major newspapers - politika.co.yu, blic.co.yu; or freeb92 station etc) to see how little is archived even there; Here is one source, online, that is about art during NATO agression and it gives the song in question as an important example of it:

[7] BabaRera 22:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Extremly Strong KeepHOW LONG WILL WE TALK ABOT THIS?? OFF COURSE THAT ENGLISH NEWSPAPERS NEVER MENTIONED IT,THE SONG IS A CRITIC OF ILLEGAL AND CRIMINAL NATO AGRESSION.SO OFF COURSE THERES NO MENTION OF IT IN NATO AND ZIONIST PRESS.Dzoni 21:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dzoni, with your paranoia and conspiracy theories, you are not helping the discussion at all. --dcabrilo 21:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Borise,sta bi tek rekli da smo napravili clanak o pesmama "Ja sam ja" :))))))Dzoni 21:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ja sam vec napisao te pesme na sr wiki, a napisacu i ovde, picka im materina. --serbiana - talk 21:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is the English language Wikipedia. If you want to converse in Serbian on your Talk pages, please do so, but don't do it on AfD or other multi-user discussion pages. Please either convert your text into English, or I will remove it. And I've already asked you once to stop referring to people you disagree with as Zionists. How many warnings do you need? I don't have a clue what Zionism has to do with this at all, but then, paranoia rarely makes sense. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Trans. for Zoe: "boris, imagine what would they say if we created an article about the song "ja sam ja"" (courtesy of the Zockster) - FrancisTyers 21:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong KeepJamal Curtis 21:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a discussion page. Please explain your reasoning. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep or Hardcore merge Per talk page. What I'd really like to know is is the song actually funny or not? — I mean, are we talking Monty Python funny, or just Big Train funny? - FrancisTyers 21:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The arguments for song notability are now also presented on the talk page; not only the band is notable, but the song as well, according to the proposed guideline - the only one that exists on wiki now. Only if you suspect bad faith of editors who made the claims, that are verifiable (by contacting radio stations for instance), you can claim that, for the purpose of AfD, this is non-notable and should be deleted immediately. BabaRera 16:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny if you speak Serbian (of course), and if you didn't really like the Clinton administration... --serbiana - talk 21:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is deffinetly Monty Python funny,I can even send it to you in audio with english translation.There is also another very funny song: "It is me' (Ja sam ja) with very funny lyrics about Bill Clinton,Tony Bler,Robin Cook and other butchers,but its extremly funny.Dzoni 21:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lyrics is avaiable here, with translation. [8]; the song itself can be heard here: [9]
  • Strong Delete, this is not Serbian Wikipedia even if in this page we can meate all the serbian user wich are traing more than this User talk:Dzoni#Zionists. The votes from Dzoni and Bormalagurski/serbiana must be deletet beacose this article it hase to do much more with propaganda. --Hevnonen 21:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This user is voting on the basis that English Wikipedia can't have an article about something if Serbian Wikipedia has one. Thats low. I see it's good that we kept the Serbophobia article. --serbiana - talk 21:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I m not dreaming, you have give us a argument User talk:Dzoni#Zionists. --Hevnonen 22:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hevnonen,[personal attack removed. Zocky | picture popups 22:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)(UTC)] language:))))Dzoni 21:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Now they are making Serbian users on sr:wiki mobile for this unnotable song. See here. Regards --Mig11 22:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I can see that Albanian users are mobile here - saying that song is not notable. What evidence you present to that? Serbian users (and users from Slovenia/Croatia etc) that were exposed to radio broadcasts of this song certainly can comment on its significance. They can testify about the song and what they lived through and point out to relevant things. However, the votes of Albanians (who presumably did not hear about the song, which is not at all surprising given that they are living a completely separate lives, and were not exposed to any of the Belgrade radio stations, which did not play in Kosovo, and share little culturally with Serbo-Croat speaking part of the Yugoslavia) are merely asserting that a song is non-notable (I am not able to judge what Albanian song is notable, and would not make such unfounded claim) - for reasons, which I strongly suspect have more to do with serbophobia than honest opinion. BabaRera 22:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Translation of the link: Text on the link provided states: "AfD about removing a hit of index-guys is taking place on English wiki. Could you take a look at the page and state your oppinion, evidence and arguments about whether the song is notable" bolding as in original, undelines by me. N.B.: I didn't put the notice, I just thought that people who do not speak Serbian should have a translation to judge about "good faith"-ness of the notice by themselves. --Dijxtra 22:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Balcer who summarizes the matter well. JoshuaZ 22:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Changing to Merge but don't mind deletion. The band is notable; Balcer's logic works well for the song, I see no extensive evidence for notability of the song by itself. JoshuaZ 01:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
His objection is that he cannot find articles from 1999 from Serbian press online. Yet, there are almost no articles from that period online. And you are ignoring all other presented evidence. BabaRera 22:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mention of the song in English newspapers and in books about the Kosovo war would be fine as well. Plus I am assuming old copies of Serbian newspapers are stored in libraries, both in Serbia and outside of it. Would it be too much to ask one of the Serbian editors involved in this discussion to visit a library and dig up a reference? That would be much appreciated. Balcer 23:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weather the song is mentioned in English press, I do not know. I think Serbian newspapers are stored in few libraries outside serbia, if at all. However, they are available probably in the major national library; some people might store the papers themself - I have a whole bunch of newspapers at my home in Serbia (I live abroad though, and cannot browse them until I go there on holiday), but some other people from Serbia might be able to do it. It is not a small task to browse through the old newspapers though if one does not keep them - since there is probably few libraries that have them. Asking by e-mail the group itself would be the best way to get the references, as they are probably aware of that. See their site [10] and write to [email protected] <[email protected]> and ask them about the song references in the media directly. It is probably the shortest way to check it - if you want to make a good faith effort to come to the bottom of this, the best thing is to ask them directly (they do speak english, I am sure). BabaRera 23:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Serbiana made a good point. What else do u need?! Luka Jačov 23:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Verification of notability, which we still do not have. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate. What, for instance, have you to say with regard to the evidence presented at the talk page of this AfD (everyone is ignoring it, it seems). Also, what do you have to say about aking Indexovci themself about the media mentions of the song on [email protected] - it is a way to verify the claims that the song was indeed used on rallies, that it was broadcasted, to check the copyright status of the lyrics/ask permission etc - they can provide you with the data, since you are not satisfied with what users here are claiming; not all sources have to be online, and then, a claim that such and such a paper contains such and such a thing, verifiable in principle, can be established. And what do you think about the claim that you place an undue burden here? What exactly you want to verify, and how does it follow from WP:N policies or policies relevant for AfD BabaRera 23:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So far all I have seen are links saying that the song exists and that people liked it, not that it was notable. And it is the responsibility of people making a claim to contact those who might prove the validity of the claim, but just contacting the group who recorded it would probably only get their own inflated feelings of importance. Is there a journalist we can contact? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was suggesting to verify the claim that there were radio broatcasts, that the media mentioned the song etc. by asking them for references, not opinion; If you distrust all Sebrs whatsoever, that not only violates WP:AGF, but also makes it difficult to make any arguments at all. For instance, do you dispute the notability of Indexovci? Unlike for songs, there is accepted guideline for that; I have provided a detailed explanation on the talk page. per that guidelines. So, do you agree, per evidence presented (newspaper links with indexovci etc - it has been detailed there) that Indeksovci are notable. And then, the question is what kind of notability about the song you ask to be proved? If it is broadcasting on the media, yes, it has been broadcasted a lot, for instance, on b92 (site freeb92) and one can check with the radio stations that people who claim popularity listened to in bunkers. You can verify it by emailing the radio stations. It is an undue burden to ask people to prove it in a way you do, just to provide means of proving it, as a reference etc. And asking a site is a valid mean - it works that for copyright issues with regard to pictures - providing a way to check copyright status. Why should there be higher burden of verifiability of claims that we make here. Anyone, who doubts it, can ask the radio station about what songs were broadcasted. Given a reference which is not online, it is not a burden of those who reference it to scan it for those who want to see - they have a means to check it, and assume good faith until a reference proves to be bogus. Isnt it that way that it works for copyright issues? Why it would be different for other sources, which are not online? BabaRera 00:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's it, it's my anti-Serb bias that caused me to put this here, it couldn't possibly be any other reason. You got me. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What motivated you is of no importance. You can ask for evidence, but I am saying that there is a policy here [WP:AGF]. Also, please state your concerns clearly and explicitly, so that there is no misunderstanding.
I have put a detailed argument on notability of the band on the talk page, per criteria. The notability of the band does not seem to be disputed - they meet several criteria, and reliable sources have been given, as required (media articles discussing them are one example, then their numerous tours etc). So, the argument now seems to be not about notability of the band, that is established, but just about the song - and song itself has relevance; there are no accepted notability criteria, so I ask those who dispute the song's notability to state what they ask from a song to be notable. Then we can check how these criteria are applied in wikipedia, and I would ask that same standard be applied. Also, those who claim song is notable, would at least know what they have to prove to those who are saying that it is not notable. So, please, list your cirteria for notability, and we can then proceed discussion in a constructive way - we have to know what we are talking about, and to see bottom of the dispute about notability here; I would want to know what needs to be shown, and then, the sources can be provided (though not all will be online, but that is allowed as far as I understand) BabaRera 02:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, leaning towards Keep. I remember this song from "Reuters oddly enough" in 1999, I think. I cannot pinpoint it any further but it was definitely noticeable, even in Western Europe. Regards, --Asterion talk to me 00:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete - A single song of recent origin does not seem worthy of it's own page even if somewhat notable. Is it a standard or something? How about merging to the artist/album page.--Nick Y. 00:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable in english wikipedia. OSU80 00:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Reasons? Google hits are quite enough. And, please read once again Serbiana point. --Manojlo 07:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since it is a prime example of a particular type of resistance during wartime -- resistance of those who are otherwise powerless. The arguments mustered by the "delete" side are verging on being as ridiculous as some of those on the "keep" side. Balcer, for instance, appears to be doing nothing more than providing obstacles that simply can't be overcome. Profnjm 00:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to write about this event from various angles, nothing is stopping you from adding appropriate sections to existing articles, Nonviolent resistance, for instance. Or, even better, write a separate article Shooting down of the F-117A stealth fighter in 1999 during the Kosovo War or some equivalent title, and describe exactly how that happened, with a section devoted to its propaganda, cultural and political consequences. Nobody is attempting to blot that event out of Wikipedia. In fact, given how many Wikipedians seem to feel so emotional about that event, I am actually quite suprised that such an article has not been written already. Anyway, the entire argument here is whether the song merits its own article, according to the rather strict criteria Wikipedia sets for having articles about songs. Let's stick to that straightforward issue. Balcer 01:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no accepted policy on notability of songs, and the proposal that you quoted (it is just a proposal for a guideline, nothing more), says that song has to have greater sociological relevance, and more content and context to it than just a title and authors. This song has exactly that - it was a hymn of Serbian resistance, and such songs do have articles in wikipedia. See, for instance Lili Marleen. BabaRera 01:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Maybe if people would understand the tough times Yugoslavia had to go through...--Krytan 00:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is no argument for the verifiability of the notability of this article. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is an argument for notability (are you now disputing verifiability of the claims' and content of the article? let's separate issues here, OK!). The tough times and unjust NATO bombing are exactly what makes this song notable for Serbs - not mere popularity on its own. BabaRera 02:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Song notability Criteria, proposed guideline in wikipedia, relevant in this case

I think it is high time to see what a proposal for a guideline (best that we have) says:

A song may be notable if it meets one or more of the following standards. If a song meets three or more of these standards, it is probably notable; if it meets two, it is a good candidate for notability, and if it meets one, it may border on notablity.

  • Has appeared in the Top 20 of a national singles chart in a large or medium sized country
It has been a hit during nato bombing in Serbia, so certainly one of the 20 - this can be checked by contacting by e-mail radio stations b92 (www.freeb92.net), radio index, etc. who can confirm that the song was played during the bombing extensively. Also, listed here [11] as one of the few examples of art in the NATO period (this link is perhaps more relevant in establishing media campagn); as there are no online links establishing popularity directly, verifiability can be best met with contacting the journalists - freeb92 is one of the most popular radio stations, and it is the way to proceed and confirm what Serbian people here say for those who dispute their claims.
  • Charted in the Top 100 of a national singles chart in a large or medium sized country, for at least six months (need not be consecutive)
I am not sure if this is formally met as there are probably not such charts, but in Serbia, it was popular for quite a few months during and after the bombing, well in the top 100; if there were some charts, it might be possible to dig them up - but system in Serbia is different, and what songs were broadcasted would be the best information that exists. But, under reasonable interpretation, this is clearly true.
  • Is a song that helped define a specific genre of music
Not the case
  • Is the signature song of a performer
Yes, index theatre have made few dozen songs, and this is one of their most well known. one can verify that from the index theatre themselves (contact e-mail address provided above). see also the deletion talk page where argument about this was made.
  • Is a historically notable song for being the first to do something interesting, stylistically or technologically
No
  • Helped launch a notable record label
No
  • Has been officially released in at least one remixed version and/or has been the subject of a music video that played on a major music network and/or was the subject of a major publicity campaign
Yes. It has been published on two compilations and there was a music video - as evidenced by the article from newspapers in '99, quoted above [12], that talks about music video being recorded, as well as a major publicity campaign - in fact, anti-nato sponsored propaganda effort; also evidenced in this newspapers article [13], corroborated by many users here.
  • Has been placed on a "best of" or "most influential" list from a major music media source
I am not exactly sure what is meant here - probably not (what is a major music media source). It has been among "best of" (or the best of) Index songs, is one of the "best of" NATO-war songs, it is on the compilation Oprostajni koncert (evidence provided) but I am not sure if it meets formally the criterion. It was not considered "influential" in some musical sense though.
  • Has been downloaded a high number of times through digital download websites
This is also the case. Numerous tribute pages and mp3 links for it provided source for download, and it has been downloaded by many users in ex-Yu and Serbs in the world. However, what high number of times means, is relative. The exact quotes might be available from some sites, like nostalgija.com [14] - warning - this site has popups; it is a site where much of the ex-yu music can be downloaded (piracy or not - it is the way many people get music from such sites, and one can get a quote from them and get an idea about relative popularity of the song); there are other sites that offer free download, some mentioned above.
  • Is a particularly well-known song from a piece of musical theater, radio, film or television
As Indexovci are also a comic theater troup, they have incorporated this song in piece of theatar - that is what they do with all of their songs. No quote yet though - might be available from the indexovci group directly; we have their e-mail, so this is verifiable. also, there is a video of their play with the songs - sold here, cover shown and a synopsis, testifying about this:[15]

The synopsis: Snimak predstave u Banjaluci odrzane 2001 godine .Na ovoj kaseti cete cuti I sve ove pesme obrade -El kondor pada,Sta ce mi zivot bez tople vode,Narasli su dugovi,Kada pocnem drugi dnevnik ja,Madlenka,Ja sam ja I oni su oni,Mi smo mi,Donatori gde ste da ste,Govovi se da me vavas,Lepa li je Dano vlast u krugu dvojke,Taze tursija,Sanjala sam nocas da te nema,Zazmuri,Doslo je do krvi,Ne odlazim,Kad sam gladan,Igra ruski rulet srpska Jugoslavija,Zamislim zivot u kom enosis nove cipele,Prica o Bobi Vladackom,Kasno je za brzu prugu,Stranci u Peci

Translates: a recording of the play held in Banja Luka in 2001; you will get to hear their songs: El kondor pada (notice it was listed first), Sta ce mi zivot bez tople vode (what do I need life with no hot water), Narasli su dugovi (debts have grown)...(list of other songs performed during this musical play).

In short, it seems that there are quite a few criteria met, and some are completely documented at this point as well. So, it reiterates the notability claim; nothing to say of the larger war context. BabaRera 03:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. No need to set an example of this article, there's tens of thousands of articles without references which additionally no one cares about, so why not delete those instead of this one. I think no one doubts that the song exists, so would everybody please just calm down already, we lose nothing by keeping this around until it can be referenced better. Stick the appropriate tag on it though. -- grm_wnr Esc 08:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is popular song among people of Serbia during 1999 NATO Bombing. Funny resistance those months is something what I will remember forever. This is legendary song for me. --Pockey 09:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and add a request for additional references as and when they can be produced. I know that this doesn't normally work as an argument on Wikipedia, but I've checked with a Serb friend (I know, I know!) and he confirms the song's existence and notability. For a non-English language song from a small nation with limited internet penetration to get the Google hits it does is reason enough. I have to say (personal observation again) that various supporters' behaviour on this page has not helped their case, but that doesn't alter my vote. Vizjim 09:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Pockey --Jovanvb 09:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The listed criteria for the song notability are now discussed in detail on the article talk page too, as well as on this page. It is clear that according to the proposed guideline the song is notable, and that the claims on which this depends are now either fully referenced or can be verified by emailing radio stations like b92, the indexovci themselves etc. Numerous Serbian, and also Croatian, Slovenian wikipedians, and even some from abroad have testified on the main deletion page that this is indeed the case (i.e. confirmed the claims from which notability follows), and so, according to WP:AGF, it should be enough for AfD (means for verifying are available; all claims are verifiable in principle, by checking broadcast etc. with the stations and it is undue burden to require all the e-mail confirmations and non-online references, that these users claim to exist, in short time for the purpose of this AfD; verifiability should be matter of principle, not actual scanning of books and obtaining other proofs about that, but allownig enough information for anyone to check; besides, there are tags to be placed if notability has yet to be demonstrated, deletion is wrong - since, by WP:AGF a word that it can be done should do for the purposes of AfD - discarding the claims of all the people who heard about the song or are from relavant area, spreading few countries (that were even warring against each other) that listen to songs in Serbian, is really violating WP:AGF in my opinion. BabaRera 16:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So in other words, until somebody emails those places you list, you have no verifiable references. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what I said, and I think you know it perfectly well. There are on-line references listed, some of them fully establish points for notability; but not all of the points are established by on-line references. Popularity of the song is not confirmed in a way you want it by an online reference (if you dont count google hits), but it is verifiable, since one can check with the station. Other points are (for instance, claim that the song was part of a play - there is a recording of a play being sold; then that the song is Index theatre major song; than that there was a music video; that the song was used in media campagn etc.). But you insist that the popularity is to be proven - while providing contact address for the radio stations (like www.freeb92.net) is, especially for the purpose of this AfD, quite enough - just as providing means of checking copyright status of a picture is enough. Copyright issues were always greater concern for wikipedia than notability of some articles. And why would there be tags for notability etc. if any article that did not present the proofs for notability (and some have much, much less indications and proofs of notability than this article now has) would be imediately deleted. BabaRera 17:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, note that only a few points are needed to judge song notable - one and it is on border of being notable, and three or more mean that song is notable, per the proposed guideline. This song satisfies more than enough points, and would not even depend on the popularity. So, it would be quite malicious not to take all this into account in judging notability of the song. BabaRera 17:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Notifiability and Verifiability do not have the same standards. Per WP:V, the content of an article must be verifiable: "Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources". Per WP:N, "a topic has notability if it is known outside of a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact". However, note that there is no requirement that the notability of a topic has to be verifiable in the sense of already been published by reliable and reputable sources. That's the standard we often use for both, but I think this is one of the few exceptions.

Here we have half a dozen Serbian editors giving first hand testimony that basically the entire country regularly heard the song in their bunkers; and we have a good number of links to the song in Google, considering the country and age of the song. Sure, we can't write that in the article - but per WP:AGF, and given the fact that no one is denying it, and not giving any argument against it, we can take that as evidence of popularity. I'd be much happier if someone found an "already published" reference for popularity. But if not, the already published references for verifiability, plus this unpublished evidence of notability, should be sufficient; because the standards for the two are not the same. AnonEMouse 18:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact remains that we just don't have any verifiable sources for the song's notability. So, in my opinion the best way to resolve the issue for now is to merge the contents of this article into Indexovo radio pozorište. The article about that group, which has been shown to be notable, is a sad stub at this point and could use some content. Once verifiable sources are provided, the article can be created again. Let me again quote the first two sentences of the guideline, with my emphasis added: There is consensus that the vast majority of songs do not deserve an article specifically devoted to them. Most songs should redirect to another relevant article, such as on the album the song was originally released on, or the artist in question. Songs should only have an individual article if there is enough verifiable material to warrant a detailed article. Balcer 18:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But there is plenty of verifiable material to warrant a detailed article. The only thing that isn't verifiable is notability. But there isn't any doubt of notability, given the testimony of the editors, and the many Google sites. Given that, I don't believe verifiable sources for notability are required. That's my whole point. Verifiable sources are required for all information in the article, and the article must be about a notable topic, but the notability merely needs to be true, not verifiable. AnonEMouse 19:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But is that testimony entirely accurate? How can we be sure? For example, some editors claimed above that supposedly B92 radio played this song all during the war. However, that radio was actually closed down by the Milosevic regime on April 2, 1999 (see archived internet page), and only reopened in 2000 (according to information on B92). Could someone care to explain this discrepancy? (the F-117 was shot down on March 27) Balcer 19:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, B92 was taken over by government, not closed down. The old team formed Radio FreeB92 and regained the control of B92 only after Milosevic was deposited. I don't know when and how long the pro-government B92 broadcasted.
But that's slightly beside the point. All of the editors from the wider cultural area, from different countries and different political positions, people who are often in disagreement over minute details of articles about local affairs, says that this song was popular and notable. Yet you continue to doubt them and bring up small incosistencies in their acconts of events which occurred 7 years ago.
May I ask on what grounds? Zocky | picture popups 20:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Simple. On Wikipedia, you cannot source facts based on the testimony of anonymous editors. I find it puzzling that some contributors to this discussion are unable to understand this. My demonstration here simply served to illustrate how memories are imperfect, facts can get mixed up, emotions can get the upper hand, guesses might be made about facts which turn out to be wrong. This is why verifiable sources are essential. Don't take it personally.Balcer 21:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But it is not about sourcing facts in the article, it is about judging notability. And confirmation for some points on the guideline do exist even online (see the talk page), while other claims can be verified by checking what was broadcasted (regarding popularity, though major broadcasts are just part of popularity, as the whole phenomenon of cult movies etc. is a sort of underground popularity - how is that to be checked?)BabaRera 21:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: the only user who mentioned b92 was me, as a suggestion how to check the claims of those who were listening the song in those times, simply because it was the first radio station to come to mind. I personally was not in Serbia at the time, and was suggesting how to check the claims of users who were. And journalists of b92 might still be able to say weather the song was played in Serbia and to what extent, but it seems that contacting other radio stations might be more relevant (someone who was in Serbia during the bombing can say which stations). That I suggested b92 does not change what they said at all. BabaRera 20:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as far as I know, when a song in Serbia is popular, it will be broadcasted at most radio stations (if they play that type of music at all - some stations for instance do not play folk music etc.), so my guess is that any Belgrade radio station would do; and probably B92 has some of the evidence too. BabaRera 21:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a very specific statement you made: If it is broadcasting on the media, yes, it has been broadcasted a lot, for instance, on b92. So you asserted it has been broadcasted a lot on b92. That assertion is wrong, but it was allowed to stand. No Serbian editor corrected it, even though if they were in Serbia they must have known that B92 was taken off the air, as this was a very big deal at the time and even I remember it being mentioned in Western press. Like it or not, this demonstration of one inaccuracy in your facts puts a dent in the credibility of your other claims. In the light of this, I again insist that verifiable sources are essential, and we cannot just take the word of anonymous editors for notability, as shown here. Balcer 21:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is it wrong? As I said, any popular song would be broadcasted at most stations, and that B92 was taken over does not change that. I still think that it was broadcasted there by the new station policy; however, others are in better position to say it. In efect, in that paragraph I was making an argument for verifying the claims about song being popular that were already made. The fact that such claims can be verified still stands. BabaRera 21:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please provide your definition of verifiable sources and also answer my question from above? Zocky | picture popups 21:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares what my definition is? Use Wikipedia's definition, given in Wikipedia:Verifiability. Please read that whole policy page very carefully. Balcer 21:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, your definition of verifiability seems to be verifiedness, not at all the same thing. All information in the article is verifiable: you can contact the authors, the publisher, the radio stations etc. Yet, you go on insisting on verified, not verifiable sources. Can you now please answer my question of what grounds do you doubt the truthfullness of a whole series of editors from the area? Zocky | picture popups 21:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's policy is:
  • Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
  • Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.
  • The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.
Try to understand the last point especially. Balcer 21:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please stop the bolding? We're all perfectly capable of reading here. Since you continue to confuse "source" with "mentioned in media", I'll let that one go. Can you now please finaly answer my other question? Zocky | picture popups 21:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not doubt the truthfullness of the editors from the area. I think they are telling the truth. At the same time I want to see reputable sources and verifiable claims, as that is Wikipedia policy and this is how this encyclopedia is build. Clear? Balcer 22:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is policy for claims made in the article, not for claims about notability; and nevertheless, here it is asked that article be deleted if its popularity (newer mind other criteria which work even for songs that were not popular, let alone proved popular) is not proved. And just listing radio stations that played should be enough of a reference. BabaRera 21:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per J.s. Stifle (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a discussion page. Please explain your reasoning. Zocky | picture popups 20:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "per J.s." looks like a perfectly valid explanation for reasoning to me. Took me whole three seconds to figure out whom this editor was concurring with, which was pretty amazing considering how spammy this discussion is. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, few songs are notable - was there a single release? The article says it was released on a compilation album. Article about that album might be good if the compilation in question meets notability criteria. If there was no single, I'd be terribly interested of hearing verifiable proof about the alleged popularity of the song, because otherwise this will be very far from WP:MUSIC/SONG's thresholds. Further, this thing is going out of process on various levels: Firstly, document the albums before songs and only then split songs to subarticles, and secondly, this gigantic rantfest here and RfC, combined with lack of notability evidence by the proponents, won't exactly keep people chilled about this. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW I'm now leaning on Merge - Verifiability aside, this doesn't need an article of its own. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The notability of the song (a satirical song during the war, not ordinary music hit) lies in its sociological relevance - it was sort of a chief resistance song during the war. So, it is actually more notable than the compilation itself. Also, please see the criteria listed to judge songs and how this song fits into them on the talk page of this deletion page. BabaRera 21:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please read the article before voting? There are no singles, there is no band, it's a theater troop which often performs songs and sometimes publishes them. Anyway, probably no single of any kind was released in Serbia since 1980s, especially not while the country was at war with NATO. This is not a popular commercial hit, it wasn't even available in stores when it came out. It was a political statement and is notable and became popular because of that. Nothing in the world to do with WP:MUSIC. Zocky | picture popups 21:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can we stop with all these inaccurate guesses already? Here is one website illustrating the healthy state of the Serbian music industry www.b92.net, at least in the past few years. I would like to see some evidence that no records were produced in Serbia during the 1990s. Balcer 21:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Balcer, when El kondor pada was released, B92 did not exist. It was raided by the police on the night the war started, and it didn't come back to life till after the war. Most newspapers, except for Politika, were coming out irregularly, and usually had 4-5 pages (just to give you the perspective of media at the time). Second of all, Indexovo radio pozorište is not a pop band. They don't release records, but they do have some compilations. P.S. the only single from ex-Yu I remember during the 1990s was by Van Gogh, somewhere around 1997. It was not a commercial endevour though. --dcabrilo 21:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are the first to come up with the claim that "that no records were produced in Serbia during the 1990s", you will have to find evidence yourself. "Produced records" are not "released singles". From the death of vynil singles until the age of cheap independent production of CDs, only albums were released in Yugoslavia and later Serbia. Zocky | picture popups 21:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, I took singles to mean records. My mistake. My point was to suggest that maybe the Serbian music industry was not in such disarray in the 1990s as some people claim. For example, why is there such certainty that there were no music charts, so that this song could not be ranked? Just curious. Balcer 22:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dcabrilo, can you say what radio stations were active and played the song. It would then be possible to check popularity by e-mailing them and asking about the song broadcasts. BabaRera 21:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BabaRera, absolutely. Balcaer ignores popularity is verifiable... But it's not easy to verify. Somebody in Serbia should contact radio stations and get confirmation. --dcabrilo 21:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here, Since we are discussing wwwolf vote, something he said in another vote for deletion. He voted delete here, but his comment could serve those who are for keep here [16]. Dcabrilo - could you say the names of the stations that were playing the song, that you remember clearly. That would be very helpful. BabaRera 22:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(taken from another vote):

  • Comment Here's just something for people to chew: Should the verifiability criteria put as the question "can verifiable third-party sources be found?", or the question "is there a possibility that verifiable third-party sources can be found?" It's almost like the question on Original Research: "Are there sources?" vs. "Can the statements be sourced?" I'm personally always leaning on the latter of these interpretations: It's not OR if something can be sourced to some work, it's Verifiable if the primary source exists, and there's a possibility that some independent source will show up and verify the claims.
    These rules are in Wikipedia to stop crackpots from pushing their theories as undisputedly valid knowledge. The rules aren't meant to stop discussing cult fictional works - that's what notability criteria is for! What I'm seeing here is trying to delete a work by simply stacking charges: we're proposing the article's deletion as a matter of technicality. "You can't verify this." The way I see is this: Could a reputable game magazine cover this game? (I'm guessing someone might already have.) Could some notable blogger review this game, for example? (Probably, and may already have.) Could some researcher go and conduct a methodical study of EO's player base? Now, you can ask these questions, and answer is a definite "maybe". Ask similar sort of questions about some crackpot scientific theory, and you get a definite "hell no, not even probable". --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(taken from another vote)

    • For the record, that was a statement I really regret making (as can be seen by anyone who takes a look at my user page), because I knew it would be twisted, and this AfD clearly shows it was. I'm NOT NOT NOT advocating complete lack of verifiable sources, just that if the subject has provided statistics, they can be considered verified (and this is what the verifiability criteria does concur with!). Further, this was a case where such thing was present and forward-looking: The game existed, it had statistics, and people could go there and research it further. I believe that particular principle was applicable in the AfD I used it in, because we were talking about a case where there was absolutely no reason not to believe the statistics put forth by the subject of the article. That AfD was about a net game, where this was pretty much clear-cut: The game publishes live statistics, we should believe them unless there's documented evidence to contrary. However, this AfD is a bit different: The article doesn't really provide any such evidence of popularity from the primary source, and the claims are vague. This is same as no sources at all, which is not fine with me. Also, this article deals with a past event; it's not something that can simply be verified by sending in the researchers and letting things observe the supposedly popular phenomenon. This article is about something that was. It needs stricter criteria. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Balcer. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I WANT TO THANK EVERYONE WHO SUPPORTED MY ARTICLE,THIS WAS JUST AN IDEA ,BUT I NEVER DREAMED THAT ARTICLE THAT I STARTED WILL GET SUCH A SUPPORT.I WANT TO TELL YOU THAT AFTER WE DEFENDED THIS ARTICLE,THERE IS NO TELLING WHAT WE CAN DO,SINCE JUSTICE HAVE BEEN DONE.THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT ONCE AGAIN,BORIS,BARARERA AND EVERYONE ELSE.

THOSE LIKE ZOCKY CAN TRY AND DEMONIZE SERBS,BUT THEY WILL NEVER MAKE ITDzoni 22:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it needs to be said, but this user, Dzoni is blocked indefinantly for being a sockpuppet of the communism vandal. Just for those who were wondering... DGX 01:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dzoni has been a disruptive user, and Zocky blocked him for the insults that he had thrown (on nationalist basis). However, he is Serbian (judging by his knowledge of the language, and other things) - was communism vandal Serbian? I find it curious - I will take a look who is the original communism vandal. To me, Dzoni seems to be a very bitter Serbian user, who has lost his house in Croatia and a nationalist, I dont know abut the other stuff. But this is not relevant for this particular discussion, as enough users from the area (Zocky, Dijxtra - Slovene and a Croat), and Serbian editors (dcabrilo, bolmagurski etc) have made the case. I dont think that Dzoni has helped this cause much (even if he started the article) because of his disruptive behaviour, and in fact it seems that this has probably played the role in the first hasty deletion (which went against the majority keep votes). But an article has its place irrespectively of who started it. BabaRera 02:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per many above. What happened to assuming good faith on this one? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 23:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as the claims made in the article are certainly sourced or can be sourced reliably. Information about the "notability" of a subject is an internal matter for us to discuss, and is not subject to the same verifiability standards, in part because "notability" cannot be defined. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 23:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In other words, if anything can be proven to exist, then we should have an article on it? User:Zoe|(talk) 02:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The notability of this article has been discussed extensively. Dont twist other people's words, please! The point of the coment was that WP:V applies to the verifiability of the claims made in the article, not to notability, that has WP:N as policy; how to prove notability is not even discussed - and an official policy on notability does not exist, while per the proposal notability has been explaind on the talk page. You ask verification of the claims on which notability is to be established - you are not even satisfied with verifiability (providing ways to verify by pointing to off-line resources); that is certainly an interpretation that many users have objected to, and this user is just another one. In short, WP:V refers to content on the article, and that what this comment is talking about BabaRera 02:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it is the policy of Wikipedia to have articles only on songs that are notable, the very existence of a song article amounts to a claim that the song is notable. Hence, this notability must be shown with verifiable sources, in accordance with WP:V. Balcer 03:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dont you think you are streching things here? There are reasons why there are guidelines (too many songs for instance) and this song is not the one to be eliminated in the first place. But besides, the notability has been established for some points with online references already, and verifiability is provided for the other claims (refering to band and the ststions); so even if you were right, much has been done (and even verifiability of the content does not have to be established in short time - per deletion policy, placing tags like {fact} is the right response, and listing for AfD is only a last resort). BabaRera 03:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We are still missing a key piece of the equation here. If you want to prove notability this way, you should write to the email address of the station in question, receive a response confirming the notability of the song (for example information on how often it has been played), and post it here. Then invite others to check if they doubt your verification. At this point you are even assuming that the radio station will answer emails, but what if they will not? Balcer 04:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are enough pieces even without verifying the popularity - there are more elements to notability of a song (per proposed guidelines) than just popilarity. And I disagree with you what verifiability means. Saying that a public broadcaster has broadcasted something is verifiable per se, as it is a public information. Saying that portugese (or polish) television has broadcasted some series or TV show in the 60s or 70s might also not have any on-line references, but people will not question good faith of those who remember this and enter such things into the article. Such information is verifiable since there are documents about it, as public information. Verifiability does not require what you claim, and that poit was already made to you. Also, as I said, even if you were right, since the popularity is not the only claim of this song to notability, and since notability does not even have an accepted policy, the common sense is to be applied here. You could maybe ask for verifiability of verifiability, and go as many steps upwards, but at some level you have to rely on common sense (we can determine something - that there are sources, but you ask to source the fact that there are sources; then you might as well ask to source the facy that we can source the fact that there are sources, and so ad infinum; in fact, for notability, we apply common sense directly, for facts in articles, we provide sources and apply common sense that they are sources, and even there we do not source the fact that they are sources). BabaRera 04:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I just checked again how many google hits there are for this song. I used google.com instead of other google servers (earlier on, someone used google.ca):
"el condor pada" = 252 hits
"el kondor pada" = 81 hits
This includes google hits on Wikipedia. Let's remove them:
"el condor pada" = 241 hits
"el kondor pada" = 77 hits
Searching on google.it yelds similar results.
Either the song is becoming more popular ;-) or the original searches a few days ago didn't get a reliable result at that time. --Lou Crazy 03:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above, the number of hits one sees appears to be dependent on one's geographical location. I am located in Canada and when I click your two last links, I get 67 and 23 links respectively. And no, my url does not show google.ca. But who knows, maybe my settings are off somehow. Anyway, I accept your numbers, as we should of course take the maximum. Still, 300 hits in total for a supposedly major song does not seem like much. How many hits does one get if one searches using Serbian alphabet? Balcer 03:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not that many, there are two Serbian alphabets, the latin alphabet and the cyrilic azbuka. However, almost all of the Serbian web-sites use the latin alphabet, because it's more simple. So, writing Ел кондор пада probably wouldn't return any hits... --serbiana - talk 03:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of notablility, unverified. Song lyrics are not proof of notability. I agree this the English Wikipedia and votes and comments should be in English.--John Lakonias 04:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen the proof on the talk page?. What do you mean votes and comments should be in English - arent they? Or did you mean that references need to be in English - that is strictly false, since all policies allow non-English sources if there are no sources in English. BabaRera 04:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Did everyone take a good look at Category:Song_stubs yet? I do hope, however, that nobody will decide to prove a point over this :) --dcabrilo 04:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW. I just found another reference. Once again, the reference does not talk about how many songs were sold (because they weren't, it's not a pop album, we went over it again and again), but [17] (it's slow to load from North America) talks about humor during nato bombing. It lists jokes, several emails which were circulating usenet at the time, jokes on the banners on protests, etc. Look for "мотив овог бомбардера нашао се и у песми Ја возим стелта 117-а Индексовог радио позоришта". The article talks only about one song, and that's our baby here :) The article goes on about bomber 117A, and dedicates that paragraph to saying that "motif of this bomber occured in song I 'drive' stealth 117A (most people heard it on the radio/TV, apparent ambiguity about the song name)", and goes on to retell the song, in similar manner as the article in question does. The article is well written, and shows that the song was important part of that humor (or cynicism some would say) on the Serbian part. --dcabrilo 05:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Finally, we have the first source which gives some indication that the song might be notable. We could use a few more, given that this is just a private page and we know nothing about the credentials of the authors. Keep them coming. Balcer 05:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No need to keep them coming. The website is not "a private page". It's an academic site about Slavic ethnology, with a long list of authors from Slavic countries, easily accessible from the link dcabrilo provided above [18]. Dejan Ajdačić, the author of the text and the editor of the site has a rather long bibliography [19], including numerous books and articles in journals, including the Slavic and East European Folklore Association's journal [20]. Can we now please stop wasting everybody's time? Zocky | picture popups 08:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for digging up the author's bibliography, it was not linked from the page given. I will let the community judge whether this one sentence mention in one article, the only direct mention we have been able to find after presumably extensive searches, is enough for evidence of notability. For me it is not, and I am sticking to my vote for merging the content into the article about the group which created the song. Balcer 13:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Balcer, it's not only one sentence. It's not mention, it's discussion. BTW. do you think that all songs from Category:Song_stubs should go? Because, according to the community, even songs with much, much, less significance have a place on Wikipedia. --dcabrilo 15:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not all should go but some definitely should. But that is a subject for another discussion. In turn I have a question for you is: what do you have against moving the content of this article to the article Indexovo radio pozorište and leaving this article as redirect. Don't you find it odd that at this point the article about the one song of this band is longer than the article about the band itself? Why do we need to have 2 stub articles, when one would do fine at this point? Balcer 16:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the only direct mention that was brought up in this discussion - [21] was provided before; also, criteria other than popularity were shown to be satisfied. BabaRera 15:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not count that one because it is from a no longer existing page, the credibility of which cannot, by definition, be easily verified. Anyway, if you want to keep precise count of how many references we have, please do so. It appears at this point we have 2 web hits of any kind which discuss or at least hint at the significance of this song in a coherent sentence. Please correct me if I am wrong and add more. Balcer 16:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great work dcabrilo, finally we have sources, and hope is growing that the article won't be deleted. --serbiana - talk 05:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Isn't it clear by now that this song is notable, certainly more notable than many others under the songs stub? At this point, one editor seems to be demanding the impossible, largely to punish the creator of the entry for being a jerk. Let's not let personalities get in the way. Is this not about the time for some administrator to step in and render his/her considered judgment? Profnjm 16:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I must say my contribution to the discussion here was extensive and might not have been entirely objective (though I tried to be polite and not break any rules). Maybe I was ticked off at least a little at the first, atrociously bad version of this article, which was created by User:Dzoni, a ridiculous troll who has now been permanently banned. I will stop at this point and let the community make its decision. But I still hold my opinion that the best way to proceed here is to merge the content to the article about the band and leaving this as a redirect. That will not remove any information that has been entered so far, and will mean we will have one stub article instead of two (at this point). Plus, that will be in accord with the spirit of Wikipedia guidelines.Balcer 16:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the nth time, it isn't a band, its a theatre troupe. - FrancisTyers 22:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How we got here and what we learned[edit]

Here's a review of the steps that brought us to this point:

  1. A rather incivil newbie editor creates a bad article about a Serbian song at the wrong title.
  2. It gets afd'd. Local editors uniformly say that the song is notable and that it should have an article. Despite minority opinion for delete, the article is deleted for lack of references, prompting a rather premature RFC.
  3. The incivil editor recreates the bad article at another title, this time correct but misspelt.
  4. It gets afd'd and then speedied as recreated material.
  5. A group of established editors writes a new, proper stub about the song at its proper title.
  6. It gets tagged for speedy deletion. The tag is removed by a yet uninvolved editor.
  7. An old hand speedies the article twice and finally puts it on afd after it had been undeleted twice by different editors.
  8. A series of editors from the wider cultural area consistently say that the song is notable.
  9. The incivil editor is first blocked, then permabanned.
  10. The old hand that afd'd the article accuses the editors who wrote the article of bad faith and, in user talk, refuses to back it up or take it back.
  11. We establish that the song is one of the most important songs by probably the most important satiric radio and theater troop in Serbia and that it has a number of google hits and web references.
  12. We go through a painful tit-for-tat repetitive argument about notability, verifiability, sourcing of facts, sourcing of sources, workings of google, state of Serbia in 1990s, etc.
  13. We finally establish that the song is notable, by finding a discussion of it in an article by a prominent Serbian ethnologist, who happens to be the head of university library at the Belgrade University, by far the most important education institution in Serbia.

And here are some things we hopefully learned along the way:

  • Topics should be judged on their own, not by the editor who first created an article about them.
  • Shouting IN ALL CAPS and insulting people will make things harder for your side of the argument (and get you permabanned, of course).
  • Pick your fight wisely. When a wide-ranging group of editors disagrees with your actions, it's good to check what's going on and who's doing what before engaging in knee-jerk reactions and personal attacks.
  • When a long series of people who are likely to be familiar with a topic because of their education, experience, or location, consistently says that it's an important subject, it's likely that it is.
  • If you're out of your depth on facts, no amount of bravado, rethorical devices, appeals to authority, nit-picking and reiteration will make your case better in the long run.

Here's hoping that next time we'll avoid some of the mistakes we made here. Zocky | picture popups 19:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tally[edit]

Since this has gotten messy, I think counting opinions will be useful. Yes, I understand this is not a vote, but this discussion is also unusually messy. As of the current time, I count Delete: 11 (including 1 for nom) Keep: 20 Merge: 3 Neutral/Keep: 1 Merge or Delete: 1 Keep or Merge: 1 AnonEMouse 20:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • One more vote for Keep. At the first AfD I voted for merging into a bigger article about Serbian reaction to the 1999 bombings but this article has developed to a degree when it can stand for itself. I haven't read the whole discussion but how many google hits are there if you enter cyrilic title? --Tone 21:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plus another Keep as per badlydrawnjeff somewhere back up there - and I have taken the time to read the whole thing, which inter alia demonstrates - yet again - that an admin without the rudiments of courtesy is more trouble than he or she is worth.Staffelde 00:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is plain dumb if you ask me... I vote delete--Manwe 14:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So once again policy gets violated by voting. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One can vote, but one can't be sure that the vote has any value. That's all. Profnjm 17:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think this article is totally appropriate on the Serbian-language wiki, but not on the English one. -- stubblyhead | T/c 21:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How come? Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Why would a notable song from some other culture be excluded? It is not what wikipedia policies say. English is a universal and most widespread language, and there are many people who might be interested in understanding other cultures. Your reasonong does not make sense to me. BabaRera 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, whoa, Stubbly head, this is one of the stupidest reasons I've heard so far. So, the English wikipedia is only for non-Serbia-related articles? That sounds a little unfair to me, if it's worth mentioning in one Wikipedia, is there a different standard on this one? This article is a millionth of the encyclopedia, having an article about a song that caused SO MUCH comotion when it was suggested to be deleted, proves its notability, as well as the sources and Google hits given on this very page. Whats there to talk about? Keep the song, end of story. --serbiana - talk 00:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I disagree. I don't think that notability is a universal thing. I'm sure that there are many articles on en.wikipedia.org would not be seen as notable on sr.wikipedia.org, and removed without incident. A bunch of people bickering doesn't create notability. -- stubblyhead | T/c 00:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then why are there notability criteria that mention explicitly countries other than English-speaking? Do you want to remove German songs, or Jewish issues? Or is it specifically that you consider Serbs insignificant, despite all the criteria that were shown here to be satisfied? BabaRera 01:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find that comment (stubblyhead) virtually incomprehensible. Nobody claimed a bunch of people bickering made the song notable. Straw man. The people are, actually, debating its merits. That was a gosh-darned dismissive comment. What do you have to say about the arguments for its notability? Anything of substance? Anything to work with? If it's just a bunch of bickerers, why would you say it belongs on Serbian Wikipedia? Ugh. Profnjm 01:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thats the problem with democracy. You give them the right to vote, and they abuse it. The user has no idea what El kondor pada means, he didn't read the discussion, he knows nothing about what the hell we are even talking about, and yet, his vote is as valuable as the votes of people who have read the discussion, investigated the notability, and are on top of what we are discussing. Stubbly head, tell me what do you think about resistance movement songs and their impact on government officials? --serbiana - talk 01:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as I think this song *is* notable... although I haven't heard it yet. I don't see the point in deleting something that so many people — even people who have absolutely no relationship whatsoever to Serbia, like me — think of as valuable. That's all, thanks. —N-true 00:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And now, just for everyone who wants to hear the song, here we go, El kondor pada!!!! Enjoy --serbiana - talk 03:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listen to El kondor pada!
After listening, I can only say that this song can have no appeal whatsoever to anyone who does not understand the Serbian language. No wonder it has been so hard to find any mention of it in English. Balcer 03:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair enough, everyone has their own taste in music... :-) --serbiana - talk 04:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Taste should play no role in this discussion. Dcabrilo said that he didnt like it, and neither do I particularily like it, but that is irrelevant. What matters is that this song marked one period - Bombing of Serbia, and it is a notable song by a notable troup which deservs an article. BabaRera 04:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hehehe, cool! :))) --Pockey 15:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --- It's funny, and I, as a Serb diaspora haven't heard it before, but find it funny and I agree that this song must have played a key role in keeping the hopes of people in Serbia during the bombings alive, and that made a lot of people rally together.C-c-c-c 03:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Funny" and an uninformed "must have" are not valid arguments for keeping. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And valid arguments for deletion are what, you've never heard of it? Since when has world opinion been solely based on YOUR statements? If we should delete all "irrelevant" pages on Wikipedia, maybe we should get rid of your user page. I mean really, are you notable, are you famous, and superbly rich? Does anyone here really care about you? Do they really want to know whether you can speak a basic level of Spanish or whether you love/hate user boxes? No one cares, yet no one's petitioning to delete it.
    • So you know, don't comment you something that YOU are so uninformed about. God, such ignorant Americans.... Oh one tidbit, I was on the phone with my one my cousins in Novi Sad (oh, wait you don't even know where that is!) this morning, and I asked him about the song and he said that it is still very popular. Unless you want me to tap the phone next time, pay a "neutral" translator to translate it to English, send you the tape to prove my point, I suggest you take my word for it and try to better Wikipedia for all, by adding articles insteading of deleting them. The only people that are not voting for keep here are you, uninformed, pro-democracy fanatics and/or Albanian nationalists who have no idea what they are talking about and just want to see anything Serbian wiped off the map. C-c-c-c 19:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ouch. Zoe is just trying to do the best by Wikipedia as she can. Please keep WP:COOL, or read the "How we got here and what we learned" section just above, by Zocky. AnonEMouse 19:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • My comments on this subject have absolutely nothing to do with the language that it's in or even the subject matter, for that matter. My sole concern is for whether or not an article whose only claim to notability is "I remember it, it was played all the time" and "it's funny", none of which satisfied WP:V. Now, please point to any guideline under which your reasons for voting keep are acceptable criteria, and I'll change my mind. However, I also suggest you read up on WP:AGF and WP:NPA. And your cousin in Novi Sad (see, I know where it is, we even have an article about it) is not an expert on the popularity of songs in Serbia or anywhere else, is he? I do, however, find your comment about "pro-democracy fanatics" deeply disturbing. As a matter of fact, it just struck me: Why are you even voting, if you're not pro-democracy? We should just delete this now, since democracy is such a bad thing and anybody with authority can just overrule everybody else, huh?

User:Zoe|(talk) 20:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Is it possible that Zoe hasn't read anything but the last few comments? Just when the pedants had finally agreed that the song was notable, we get this renewal of the resistance. C-C-C-C's argument was not the sum and substance of the discussion. Profnjm 20:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is it more than likely that you haven't read anything but the last few comments, seeing as how I've been in the middle of this discussion since the beginning, and seeing as how I was the one who nominated it to begin with, as a recreation of two previously-deleted articles which were deleted then for being non-notable? 20:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I get all of you confused. Why haven't you been paying attention to the discussion that ensued from your nomination? Profnjm 20:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • And on another point: are you suddenly in favor of this being a vote? It seems that the earlier ruling was that some sort of consensus emerges in spite of the vote -- a sort of Rousseauean "general will." Now we are treated to this debate on the nature of democracy, with the Nominatrix arguing that voting is a good thing. Oy, I'm so confused. Profnjm 20:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And one more thing: this is a new article, not a recreation. Sheesh.Profnjm 20:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, it looks a lot like Pilot of invisible F-117-a(song) and El Condor pada, to me. And what can you possibly mean by my not having paid attention? And I don't believe this is a vote, I'm just trying to understand C-c-c-c's position that democracy is evil, even as he/she casts a vote. You're intentionally trying to turn my words, but it won't happen, so you might as well give up. It's pretty obvious that it's you that don't have a clue what's going on in this discussion. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I take it CCCC was talking about Soros gang of "pro-democracy" NGOs, not about real democracy...86.30.26.210
Nothing "pretty obvious" about any of this. The articles were different in structure, content, motivation of creator, intent. You know that, but you can't overcome your urge to pick at it. Just because I don't have constant edits in here as I dog the creator of the new article doesn't mean I haven't been following along closely. You've taken over Balcer's role as pedant-in-chief. Frankly, it's getting sadistic. These things become occasions for some hyper-motivated admin. to keep saying "but that's not notability," "that doesn't prove a thing." Don't you have something else to obstruct? Profnjm 20:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be the one making the decision on this, a non-involved admin will do the final close, and it's pretty obvious that the decision will be no consensus, but I still haven't seen a single reference proving that the song was notable, only that people know it exists. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What don't you like about [22]? It seems to cite the song as notable in the context of humor during the NATO bombing, and be by a respectable academic. AnonEMouse 22:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I support democracy fully, so much, that I wish to vote in the Montenegrin referendum coming up, vote in the British Parliament, vote for Quebec and Alberta separistism, and vote for cheaper gas prices. But what? I can't? You mean to tell me I can't vote in the British Parliament? Why can't I vote in the Montenegro referendum, or for the Bloque Quebecois? What, shouldn't my opinion be important as the opinions of the CEO of Exxon Mobil or Shell? Oh right, because I'm not a citizen in any of those places, or a board member of any big oil companies. This same idea applies with you, you have nothing to with Serbia, you are welcome to comment and voice your opinion but not try to push your own ideas (and unfortunately they will probably be ignored anyways, but that's life). You believe that you have the God given right to vote on anything you wish to even if it has nothing to do with you whatsoever, that's the problem with AMERICAN democracy. Why else are Americans always bombing/invading countries?

They think they have the God given right to change whatever they want, and leave everything they don't want to touch alone (ie. Sudan), but attack places oil rich Iraq. Also when quoting, please quote an entire sentence and not just a word (ie. "funny") so not to change the meaning of what I have said. And what I did say was "... but find it funny and I agree that this song must have played a key role in keeping the hopes of people in Serbia during the bombings alive, and that made a lot of people rally together." There is the reason right there.

My cousin may not be an expert (then again, neither are you), but the point is that in Serbia it is a still a popular and relevant topic, and as my cousin was a teen in those years it would have very popular for people his age, and that is the point. What he says is much more credible than what you can say, or I, because he has always lived there, he's much more familiar with things over there than I, you, or most people here anyways, with regards to Serbia, because he is in Serbia. My parents spent about a $300 every month calling relatives in Serbia, for over two months, to make sure they were alive during the bombings, and kids had nothing else but this to keep their hopes up. Sorry for sounding arrogant and angry, but this is really frustrating as I'm only trying to make the same point as almost everyone here. C-c-c-c 20:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for butting in, guys, but can we get back to talking about the article instead of trading unrelated insults? It seems obvious to this outsider that:

  • The "notability hasn't been verified" side will not and cannot not back down unless verification is provided, because at this point it would damage Wikipedia policy to do so.
  • If any verification whatsoever were provided, the article would be allowed to live, since anything that was at all significant in an armed conflict/resistance clearly has much more long-term notability than thousands of forgettable ditties that do have Wikipedia pages.
  • The "is notable because I say so" side has suggested some excellent ways to provide verification, by contacting the theater group, radio stations etc. They just don't seem to understand that the burden of doing so falls on themselves.

Thus, could somebody from the "is notable" side please go off to gather such verification, and in the mean time we all shut up and get on with our lives? Mglg 23:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The verification of facts and verification of notability is already provided above more than once. Please read the discussion before posting. Zocky | picture popups 23:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this is this user's first edit outside his user page. Zocky | picture popups 23:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP keep keep keep--TheFEARgod 11:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems obvious that the song is notable and the article appears to be clear and concise.--Adrift* 16:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The afd page says that the debate should remain open for five days, when an admin will step in and state the consensus. So? It's time. 8 days and counting. Profnjm 17:09, 15 May 2006 (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/El_kondor_pada&oldid=1142497642"