Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marigold (song)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. With WP:ATA in consideration, there is no consensus between keeping and merging/redirecting. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Marigold (song)[edit]
AfDs for this article:
- Marigold (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable Nirvana B-side. Never charted, and secondary source info is close to nil (and I say this as someone who has researched and written several in-depth Nirvana-related articles). Throughout its lifespan, the page has been primarily redirected to Heart-Shaped Box, the single it appears on. However, recently an anonymous IP has been reverting the redirect to an article, so here we are. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Full-protect and redirect to Heart-Shaped Box. Pokerdance (talk/contribs) 09:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Heart-Shaped Box. There's probably a bit of info from here that can be moved across to that article too (like the fact that it was written by Dave Grohl etc), but I agree that it probably doesn't need its own article, much as I like Nirvana :-D Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 14:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article - this is the only Nirvana song released where Kurt Cobain was not involved in its composition. It is significant as it showed Grohl's musical abilities long before Foo Fighters. This song much have some significane if Grohl still preforms it live with another band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.21.143 (talk) 02:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not being written by Kurt Cobain does not make it notable according to Wiki guidelines. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but improve. Seems to be a fan favorite and has sparked much debate over who actually sung vocals / played drums - Cobain or Grohl. I think if the article was improved or lengthened a bit more, it would be much more worthy to be on its own. Ericleb01 (talk) 04:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Internet fansite notability does not transleate to actual notability. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect to Heart-Shaped Box. There is some information on the song's writing, recording and subsequent performance by Foo Fighters that should be mentioned in the latter article, but there isn't enough coverage for a separate article.--Michig (talk) 07:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Quite a few books seem to have some coverage of this song, including The Rough Guide to Rock, The Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll, Alternative Rock, Icons of Rock, A Look at the Influence of Post-Hardcore, plus a number of books about Nirvana. None of the coverage in the books I could access through Google Books was particularly extensive, but the sheer volume of sources covering the song, plus the fact that there is at least one notable cover, leads me to believe that the song is notable enough to keep. Rlendog (talk) 20:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of books merely mention the song; actual in-depth information is scarce. Thus a separate article is unteniable. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In depth coverage is scarce, but many of the books have more information that a "mere mention". Rlendog (talk) 03:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, no. Looking over the books you listed, The Rough Guide to Rock simply states that "Marigold" was the B-side to In Utero in a single sentence. Same with the Post-Hardcore book. And Icons of Rock. And the Alternative Rock book. And the Rolling Stone book. The most you get is the paragraph in the In Utero book that mentions how the song was recorded, but that book also mentions the recording of several non-notable Nirvana songs as well. None of this establishes notability. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope. Several of the sources state who wrote it, under what circumstances, that it was originally recorded on an indie cassette Pocketwatch, how it ended up being covered by the Foo Fighters, a brief description of it being a "touching, indelible song", etc. Not very in-depth, but more that just mentioning that "'Marigold' was the B-side to In Utero in a single sentence." Stating that the In Utero book that mentions how the song is recorded also mentions several non-notable songs is circular and irrelevant. The other songs' non-notabilty is not established - if they meet WP:N or WP:NSONGS they are notable, and their coverage in In Utero is at least a step towards WP:N, and just because a source covers non-notable songs doesn't mean all the songs it covers are non-notable.Rlendog (talk) 15:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, no. Looking over the books you listed, The Rough Guide to Rock simply states that "Marigold" was the B-side to In Utero in a single sentence. Same with the Post-Hardcore book. And Icons of Rock. And the Alternative Rock book. And the Rolling Stone book. The most you get is the paragraph in the In Utero book that mentions how the song was recorded, but that book also mentions the recording of several non-notable Nirvana songs as well. None of this establishes notability. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In depth coverage is scarce, but many of the books have more information that a "mere mention". Rlendog (talk) 03:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep For the fact that the song, as was mentioned previously, highlights Dave Grohls desire to do more than drum it should be kept. For me, it's the song which shows Grohl produce a song which sounds like Nirvana but yearns for something slightly more positive in outlook or feeling i.e. Foo Fighters. As Foo Fighters approach to music is almost the antithesis of Nirvanas' and Marigold is the first glimpse of Foo Fighters founder Grohls personal attitude to music it's important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.116.198 (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- None of that is objective or based on sources. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but improve. There's no doubt the current article needs to be improved, but that's hardly a valid reason for deletion. As to the song's notability, it appears to be notable for several different reasons, some of which I admit I am lifting directly from the article's talk page. In WP:NSONGS, it is stated that "Songs that ... have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." This song certainly qualifies, since the Foo Fighters, Nirvana, and Dave Grohl solo/in early bands all have recorded this song, and those artists are some of the most notable in rock history. It was mentioned on the talk page that this song "didn't chart, didn't sell, it's not notable", but there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of song articles on Wikipedia that were never on any Billboard chart, so that's not a valid reason for deletion. Finally, even the argument on this nomination page seems slightly biased: It is stated that "Throughout its lifespan, the page has been primarily redirected to Heart-Shaped Box, the single it appears on." - the thing is, that's just not true, lots of people have contributed to this article in its history and most of the redirecting seems to have been done by one user, WesleyDodds, who, coincidentally, happens to also be nominating the article for deletion. I have a feeling that personal feelings and a desire to "win" are affecting his judgement of this song, and for any article to be deleted because of the actions and feelings of one user, I think, hurts Wikipedia in the long run. Considering the considerable interest in this song, and the fact that WP:NSONGS considers it notable, I think working on this article to bring it up to Wikipedia standards is the more desirable option, rather than deletion. There is plenty of information available on it, we just need to find it and cite it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockypedia (talk • contribs) 03:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI: the Late! version has close to no info on it, ditto with the Nirvana version, and the Foo Fighters version merely appeared on a live DVD. Also, keep in mind that the song was not covered by unrelated distinct groups; all of these versions are groups/projects which feature Dave Grohl (in the case of Late!, it's Dave Grohl recording solo under a psuedonym). Notability is not inherited, and secondary source info is scant. There is very little to write about the song.WesleyDodds (talk) 10:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You know, it's starting to seem like every single cogent point that is introduced that shows this song is notable is merely dismissed out-of-hand by one editor who seems to be on a mission to delete this article - after there's been so much written about this song, merely saying "there is very little to write about the song" doesn't make it a true statement. There's a term for that, called "up-is-downism", and it's closely related to the circular logic you're using. You claimed that all the book sources about the song had "a single sentence", which wasn't true. You then claim that notability under WP:NSONGS doesn't apply because "the song was not covered by unrelated distinct groups"; yet WP:NSONGS doesn't say anything of the kind. That kind of "discussion" doesn't help us; it's more of a blinders-on approach of "just deny everything in order to get my mission done." I sincerely hope you can take a step back and become more objective about this rather than treating it like a competition. I think everyone else on this talk page has been pretty objective and respectful, I hope the process works, and I hope you can join it without prior prejudice. The article needs improvement, no doubt, but there is info available on websites and in books on all the versions of the song, and we as editors will work to enter that info and cite it (I say "we" in the all-encompassing sense). I think that should be the goal.--Rockypedia (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- the best solution to that would be to improve the article with the sources provided. If they are good sources and proper mentions of the song in those sources then it would be more difficult to vote for deletion. Personally, I'd be delighted to see this article come up to scratch, but as it stands now, with the sources available, it makes more sense to redirect it Heart Shaped Box Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Problem is, and correct me if I'm wrong here, but once it's deleted, doesn't that make it much more difficult to bring it back? Also, you seem to agree that the song is notable and deserves an article, but the reason for deletion that's being presented by WesleyDodds is that it's NOT notable, a separate issue from the issue of how the article needs to be improved.--Rockypedia (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. Deletion is not meant for articles that can be improved, or a means of providing a deadline for improvement. Wikipedia does not have a time limit. As long as the article meets notability and doesn't present any other issue that would warrant deletion (which this does not) it should be kept and improved when editors see fit. Rlendog (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, my point was that we don't have (and can't seemingly find) any suitable to sources to prove its notability. Apologies if I wasn't clear :-) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. Deletion is not meant for articles that can be improved, or a means of providing a deadline for improvement. Wikipedia does not have a time limit. As long as the article meets notability and doesn't present any other issue that would warrant deletion (which this does not) it should be kept and improved when editors see fit. Rlendog (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Problem is, and correct me if I'm wrong here, but once it's deleted, doesn't that make it much more difficult to bring it back? Also, you seem to agree that the song is notable and deserves an article, but the reason for deletion that's being presented by WesleyDodds is that it's NOT notable, a separate issue from the issue of how the article needs to be improved.--Rockypedia (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- the best solution to that would be to improve the article with the sources provided. If they are good sources and proper mentions of the song in those sources then it would be more difficult to vote for deletion. Personally, I'd be delighted to see this article come up to scratch, but as it stands now, with the sources available, it makes more sense to redirect it Heart Shaped Box Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You know, it's starting to seem like every single cogent point that is introduced that shows this song is notable is merely dismissed out-of-hand by one editor who seems to be on a mission to delete this article - after there's been so much written about this song, merely saying "there is very little to write about the song" doesn't make it a true statement. There's a term for that, called "up-is-downism", and it's closely related to the circular logic you're using. You claimed that all the book sources about the song had "a single sentence", which wasn't true. You then claim that notability under WP:NSONGS doesn't apply because "the song was not covered by unrelated distinct groups"; yet WP:NSONGS doesn't say anything of the kind. That kind of "discussion" doesn't help us; it's more of a blinders-on approach of "just deny everything in order to get my mission done." I sincerely hope you can take a step back and become more objective about this rather than treating it like a competition. I think everyone else on this talk page has been pretty objective and respectful, I hope the process works, and I hope you can join it without prior prejudice. The article needs improvement, no doubt, but there is info available on websites and in books on all the versions of the song, and we as editors will work to enter that info and cite it (I say "we" in the all-encompassing sense). I think that should be the goal.--Rockypedia (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.