Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murrow Turning Over in His Grave

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. given the improvements in the article since the nomination and the nominator's change of position regarding their nomination. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Murrow Turning Over in His Grave[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I originally redirected this article to Say You Will (album), because this doesn't appear to be a particularly notable song. Across the seven sources, one of them is a YouTube link to a live performance, which certainly does not demonstrate notability, and another is a link to a fan site that has posted the lyrics of the song. Among the other sources (all of which qualify as reliable, as far as I know), none of them independently discuss this song, they all either fall under the category of album reviews that name-check the song (Slant), magazine profiles (Guitar Player), editorials about the subject of the song (Washington Post), or dead links that have no archives provided (Entertainment Weekly, FASPE Journalism). This doesn't look to have much worth keeping, and I do see this as a case where it should just be redirected to the main album article, but I will open this up for discussion, so that consensus can be established. JeffSpaceman (talk) 03:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Say You Will (album). As per the nomination, this song doesn't appear to be notable. Normally, I would skim the references myself but the nomination already did that. By the way, thanks for the due diligence. In a world of unhelpful cruft, you stand taller. IncompA 04:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep for this Fleetwood Mac song, per the Washington Post article which specifically builds the title and article around the topic of the song and thus meets WP:SIGCOV, the Guitar Player article which mentions its arrangement, etc. Easily meeting WP:GNG notability the song focuses on Edward R. Murrow, a hero of American journalism (full disclosure, I'm a journalism graduate and have worked in the field and related fields), and uses the fact that Murrow was and is known as an honest journalist to call into question the change in the way journalism diverted away from Murrow's type of integrity - making his integrity a touchstone of American values. That this song honors Murrow, that it is well covered in the media mentioned above, and that it meets GNG, passes the bar as a notable Wikipedia topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to cast aspersions here, but it feels like you have a strong conflict of interest with the subject of the song. I am not trying to devalue your input, but saying things along the lines of, "The song focuses on [Murrow], a hero of American journalism... and uses the fact that Murrow was... known as an honest journalist to call into question the change in the way journalism diverted away from Murrow's type of integrity" unfortunately does not prove anything to me other than your passion for Murrow. Ultimately, your personal opinion on a subject involved in article, positive or negative, should not play a role in discussions like these. Struck per Liz's comment below. JeffSpaceman (talk) 22:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As for the rest of your argument, you state that the Washington Post named their article after the song. Please take a moment to read WP:Notability is not inherited, which explains why this type of reasoning should be avoided. Similarly, just because the Guitar Player article noted characteristics of the song does not mean that the song has significant, independent coverage in this magazine, something that is required of multiple reliable sources to establish notability of any subject, and something that unfortunately just is not present on this article at the moment. As for your closing statement, the fact that the song honors Murrow does not automatically render it notable. Once again, please read the subsection I linked at the beginning of this paragraph.

I stand by all that I have argued. There is nothing here that I see being worth keeping. JeffSpaceman (talk) 04:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What a backhanded accusation ("No, really, believe me, I don't mean to cast aspersions here") that I have a conflict of interest because of my background. Excuse me? Do you mean that Wikipedia editors who have been educated or worked in a professional field that relates to a topic all have conflicts of interest and should be dismissed? There are many medical professionals, scientists, researchers, college professors, and on and on, who are valued Wikipedians. This is absurd, and striking out your entire first paragraph above would be a good start. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to say that you have a conflict of interest merely because of your background -- in fact, I never said that because of your background in journalism, your opinion here is invalid. I simply stated that it seems like you have a conflict of interest related to Murrow specifically: your descriptions of him being a "hero of American journalism" and talking about his "integrity" have little (if any) neutrality present in them and simply do not belong in this discussion. Please don't bring your personal opinion about Murrow into this, talk about why removing the contents of this page isn't a good idea. I'm really not trying to come down on you, but your personal opinion on the subject of the song is irrelevant in this discussion. See above JeffSpaceman (talk) 22:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC) JeffSpaceman (talk) 04:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In essence saying "Hand to God, believe me, I didn't mean what I said" doesn't cut it. You have cast aspersion and I request you strike a lot of wording from both your comments. Not only for me but for all Wikipedians who have worked in a topic-field related to AfD's such as this (and please read WP:Casting aspersions to understand why I'm being adamant about this for, again, not just myself but for other Wikipedians who you would cast into the same light). As for Murrow, hopefully you know who he was and what he accomplished. Since the article meets WP:GNG it's perfectly fine to talk about the topic of the song. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My knowledge of Murrow is irrelevant here. You still have not proven that the article meets WP:GNG. I assessed all of the sources in my original paragraph, and I came away from it with two reliable sources that name-checked the song (Slant, Guitar Player), with neither source providing special emphasis on it, an editorial about Murrow that, despite taking its name from it, only talks about the song across two meager paragraphs (Washington Post), and dead links without archives (Entertainment Weekly, FASPE Journalism). The only other sources were a YouTube link to a live performance and some fan site that posted the lyrics, neither of which is a reliable source of information by any stretch. ~~Once again, please comment on the content of the article specifically, not a subject of it. That's not what this discussion is meant for.~~ See above JeffSpaceman (talk) 22:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC) JeffSpaceman (talk) 04:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The linked Washington Post article covers the song with enough focus to meet both WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. ~~I already said that above. Now how about my point about striking your aspersion language.~~ Randy Kryn (talk) 05:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where I casted aspersions, exactly. Regarding my first paragraph of my initial response to your vote, I maintain that your personal opinion about the subject of an article does not belong in a deletion discussion. Calling him a "hero of American journalism" and "an honest journalist" with "integrity" feels like unnecessary puffery, if you ask me. I don't see where I've made any personal attacks towards you or anyone else, I'm merely pointing out what I see as biased, peacocking language. Nothing more. See above JeffSpaceman (talk) 22:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC) JeffSpaceman (talk) 05:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on the subject of an article from someone who has experience and knowledge in a field of endeavor has seemed helpful and beneficial in other AfD's, RMs, etc. that I've read. Medical professionals, biologists, astronomers, and many others give their opinions about topics. without being accused of puffery, peacocking and such. So maybe all I'm saying is that you shouldn't make a habit of that, nor a habit of doubling down on your accusations when someone calls you on them. The topic of the article is a valid discussion point, especially, as I've repeated, the Washington Post article covers your concerns about notability. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the song is notable for its production techniques and has been widely singled out for discussion by critics among a lengthy 18-track album. I've improved and diversified the referencing but is a work in progress. There are quite a few book/print references as well but I ma not experienced at citing these properly if anyone else wanted to take a look, if not I will attempt to educate myself in the correct formatting. Psywave (talk) 09:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Psywave, I've added a Chicago Tribune source, done by cut-and-pasting the https information and formatting it as a reference. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has adequate sources and coverage.Dobbyelf62 (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. An editor doesn't have a COI if they have an opinion, concerns about COI would apply if an editor had a connection to this band or recording which is not true here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep due to the sourcing showing notability and being in depth. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any WP:SIGCOV of the song in the sources in the article. The Washington Post article just quotes the song's lyrics in a single sentence, and then is briefly referenced in a quote in the next sentence. A redirect is probably fine. SportingFlyer T·C 19:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The song is from 2003, the Washington Post article from 2005. To think that the term just popped into everyone's head by accident after the song was released is stretching it. When multiple relistings after a good number of Keeps show up on an AfD, I hope closers take the full discussion into account and not just what happens after a relisting. Famous song topic, famous singing group, and the hope that journalists can someday again be as honest as Murrow was in his prime, this article seems a WP:COMMONSENSE keep and yes, it does meet GNG with the Washington Post coverage using the term that came out of nowhere and was then "on everybody's lips" and the Chicago Tribune's wonderful wording in its review praising Buckingham's guitar work on the song: "...from the psychedelic sun shower he conjures on "Murrow...". Please also realize that this song is not only a notable "song" but is a notable piece of journalistic history in popular culture - not every day that songs about journalists hit the airwaves. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, neither the Washington Post and Chicago Tribune are significant coverage. The Chicago Tribune coverage of the song is literally just (from the psychedelic sun shower he conjures on "Murrow" to the banjolike picking he brings to "Thrown Down"), and the Washington Post is a single sentence of coverage which mostly just restates the lyric. All of the other sources are just about the album the song is on with the exception of the Quietus, so there's clearly no WP:GNG pass here and I don't know why you're claiming it's satisfied. SportingFlyer T·C 23:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, Buckingham's Guitar Player quote focuses on the song, the others mention it well, there is at least one book source and, as you point out, The Quietus section and, as I said, the 2005 Washington Post article which purposely focuses on the phenomena of many sources suddenly talking about Murrow rolling over in his grave - two years after this song was released. All of this is nit-picking the notability of an already well-written article with a dozen good sources. Significant coverage doesn't have to be a cover story in Time, it is a focus on a particular song in many different publications. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I already voted to keep this article earlier, so I'll provide some additional comments here. First off, it's important to mention that the article has transformed considerably since it was first nominated for deletion back on August 15th. In their reasoning, JeffSpaceman conducted a thorough review where they cited various issues with the page. One of the sources was simply a link to a live performance, another reference simply contained the lyrics to the song, and another had a dead url. Myself and other editors took note of these concerns and have resolved them.

Another issue brought up was the perceived lack of substantial coverage. A handful of sources simply reference the song in passing, and while this alone does not amount to sufficient coverage, it should be noted that several other references go into greater detail about the song, including the lyrical inspiration, background on when the song was written (with mention of the Gift of Screws recording sessions), and some of the production techniques utilized. Some of these references were added after the article was nominated, which warrants a reevaluation of the article's current merits. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 20:04, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with virtually everything you have written above. When I nominated this for deletion a few weeks ago, what I saw was an article with either unreliable sources or ones that did not establish independent notability of the song itself. Looking at it now, it's clear that those issues have been mostly resolved, and I would be willing to withdraw my nomination. Addressing the disagreements by User:SportingFlyer above, User:Randy Kryn is quite right when he points out that significant coverage does not have to be a cover story, just focus on a particular subject across multiple different, independent publications. That is exactly what this article has improved in since I nominated it, and it's why I can't stand by my initial nomination anymore. JeffSpaceman (talk) 11:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree, sorry. I understand that significant coverage isn't a Time cover story, but this article has been cobbled together off of single sentences in articles that just name-check it, since the articles are either about the album or about the subject of the song as a whole. Guitar Player, for instance, is simply a two-sentence quote from the singer in a list of quotes about the different songs on the album. Almost all of the references are like the Stereogum article: BUCKINGHAM: Yes. “Bleed To Love Her” ended up on Say You Will, “Murrow Turning Over In His Grave,” “Come” … but there were still all these other ones. Those x10 isn't significant coverage per the GNG, sorry. A redirect to the album's page makes sense. SportingFlyer T·C 11:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you JeffSpaceman, it's all too rare that a nominator reverses their stand (a study in the strength of cognitive dissonance, which is usually found in politics and sports). Maybe you can toss a 'Keep' onto your comment to offset the above response. This AfD did, as all good AfD's do, garner more attention and added sources to the article, which is, as you point out, well improved since your nomination. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Randy Kryn: Am I allowed to place a "keep" vote in an AfD I started? I just ask, because I don't know if I can do that. JeffSpaceman (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can. SportingFlyer T·C 15:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not think that this was possible. I thought that, as the editor who started this AfD, I could only start discussion, I couldn't vote either way. Is there a policy page I can look at for further information? I'm just wondering, so that I can be assured based on policy. JeffSpaceman (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Is this possible?

DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 16:51, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JeffSpaceman, if the nominator changes their mind, and there are no votes for Deletion, then the nominator can withdraw the nomination and it can be closed as Keep. If there are Delete opinions, I think the proper thing to do is to strike the portion of your deletion nomination that is no longer valid (using <s>Nomination</s>) and putting a Keep opinion below your nomination statement. It doesn't happen a lot but it does happen that a nominator changes their opinion when sources are brought to light. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another new source added to the article. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome ! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't by me, by Dobbyelf62 who deserves Thanks! Randy Kryn (talk) 23:56, 3 September 2023 (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.