Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riff driven

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. Consensus also indicates that the list should also be removed. (non-admin closure) — neuro^(talk) 18:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Riff driven[edit]

WIkipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. While I could see value of a few examples of well known songs in an article, the scope of this list pretty much includes any notable rock/pop music song in the last 50 years. The scope is too wide to be useful. A category might be in order, but a list is redundant and too broad to be of encyclopedic value. Cerejota (talk) 06:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but it seems obvious that Cerejota is not a musician, nor knowledgeable about music theory or terminology. Cerejota, you are commenting off of your area of expertise -- leave this to musicians, please. Geĸrίtzl (talk)

It looks like you're unhappy with the section containing the list - so am I (and I left a note on the article's talk to that effect). But if that's the case we should remove the list and leave the stubby intro. The article (not the list) does assert notability but I haven't checked whether the concept of riff driven songs is actually notable enough. If it is then we should keep the stub. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep solid references. Deletions should not be used as a way to clean up an article.
WP:PRESERVE "Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing"
Wikipedia:Deletion "When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page (before deleting)"
WP:DI "Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article."
WP:POTENTIAL "In most cases deletion of an article should be a last resort"
Google news has 324 references to "Riff driven"[1] Google books 69 references[2]
Nominator failed to do what Wikipedia:Notability requires: "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." travb (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP as is. "The scope is too wide to be useful" is not a valid argument. The article meets Wikipedia notability requirements. Also, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles: "The main goal of this project is to ensure that Wikipedia has a corresponding article for every article in every other general purpose encyclopedia available." Wikipedia policy on notability says an article is "notable" if it is "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice"; it is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". User Cerejota's statement, "a list is redundant and too broad to be of encyclopedic value" is entirely subjective (hence this discussion/vote). Geĸrίtzl (talk)

Please note that the person who suggested deletion of this article, Cerejota, has been blocked for a period of 24 hours for edit warring on the article Roof knocking.

I have examined this article top to bottom, but I am just not seeing the connections between Roof knocking and Riff-driven songs. Seriously, could you clear up what the connection is to me, but I just am not seeing it... erm... Are the Israelis warning potential bombing sites by playing Riff-driven songs for them? Surely that's it... Because unless that's it, it is inappropriate to bring up irrelevant and totally unrelated crap about other editors because you don't like their opinion. Grow up. Trusilver 03:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep, remove list "riff-driven song" could easily be a synonym for "rock song". Who says a particular song is "riff driven"? And who says it is notable for it? This article is pure OR I'm afraid, unless proven otherwise. To qualify what I'm talking about, there is absolutely no objective criterion for what should be in this list and what shouldn't; therefore it has no use as an article. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 05:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that I've changed my "vote" above; I was under the illusion that this was a list article. I think the phrase itself is somewhat notable; however the list is completely arbitrary and should be removed. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 19:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Delete~~ Conditional Keep. I noticed that there is a lot of ghits on this subject, this first led me to lean in favor of keeping it until I started to look through some of them. That there are sources on the subject, there really isn't a question. The problem is that the definition of "Riff driven" seems to be completely arbitrary and subjective depending on the source. As the editor above me pointed out, there is no objective criterion for inclusion on this list... mostly because there is no objective criterion for what determines if something is "riff driven" or even what "riff driven" really means. Keeping this is roughly similar to me creating List of songs that are fairly badassed. I would have no difficulty at all finding google hits about badass songs, but without an objective criteria for what qualifies as badass, it will be nothing more than original research...just like this article. Trusilver 08:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be open to keeping the article if the list was gone and the article was stubbed to a bare sourced definition. All the other issues with the article can be worked out moving forward from that. The list is OR garbage and needs to go though. Trusilver 23:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Far too subjective a concept for a list. So, clear the list and create an article on the topic, of which there is easily enough information concerning. If it's still a list the next time an AfD comes around, then it's a perfect candidate for delete; indiscriminate, subjective and bound to attract Original Research independent of the most stringent criteria. There is though, nothing wrong with subjective topics having articles pertaining to the idea, so I think this could make a very nice little aside from the generic genre definitions crammed with editor opinion on what defines each and every style of music they can consider. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article, remove list; the list is entirely unencyclopedic and directly violates WP:V and WP:OR - the article should be stubbed and only the basic definition (in the lead) should be retained. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 18:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ceretoja and Travb - David Gerard (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability, term is used in Google Books.--J.Mundo (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both. The user who said "riff-driven song could easily be a synonym for rock song" knows not what he/she is saying. Please stay in your area of expertise if you don't know musical terminology and theory. I can name countless rock songs that are not riff-driven. Spacelib (talk) — Spacelib (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- That was me. My point was that 90% (don't ask me to cite that!) of rock songs are based on simple repeating chord progressions; beyond that it's a matter of interpretation whether that "drives" the song or not. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 18:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Certainly well over 90% of rock songs are based on a repeating chord progression (more like 99.9%). But there is a huge difference between a chord progression and a continuo or background repeating riff!! "Michelle" has a repeating chord progression, but is not riff-driven. Day Tripper has a repeating chord progression, and is definitely riff-driven. Geĸrίtzl (talk)
    - In fact I'll go further and state that only a handful of songs might ever have been written with no repeating chord progression. Even serialists writing twelve-tone songs repeat the progression, or a variation thereof. And certainly no popular rock song ever has been recorded that did not have a repeating chord progression. I challenge fellow Wikipedians reading this to come up with just one! And "songs" without melodies (e.g. Rap, or spoken word) don't count, as those are not songs. Geĸrίtzl (talk)
    - I agree! However, would you care to venture an objective threshold for the list? (That's what I'm really getting at...) Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 00:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Cool, now we're in synch! Thank you, Oli Filth. I could probably give reputable citations for but 10 of the songs on that list... maybe 20 or 30 if I really worked at it. The line between OR and interpretation is a fine one. For example: if I read the musical score to "Cult of Personality" by Living Colour or Satisfaction by the Stones, I, as a musician, can conclude (as any musician would) that it is definitively a riff-driven song, just as Jean-François Champollion could tell you the meanings of the hieroglyphs in Egyptian pyramids. But I would be hard-pressed to find a written citation that said "Cult of Personality is a riff-driven song" or "Nowhere Man is a harmony-driven song." I do not think that it is Original Reseach to translate Egyptian to English, nor to translate musical scores to layperson understanding. Consider this claim: "Norwegian Wood is in Waltz time." I do not have to find some notable written word that states that fact; I need only to see the score, and read the signature, 3/4, to make that claim in a WP article. I have merely analyzed and translated the musical score to an understanding in English. That is not "Original Reseach" but merely translation. Your thoughts? Geĸrίtzl (talk)
        I do see your point. But maybe it's just me, but I really find it hard to accept WP lists which rely solely on an editor's interpretation to classify a given item as a member or not (for instance, I wouldn't classify Sweet Child of Mine as riff-driven, so who gets the final say?!). Given that lists are already prone to grow with fluff, fancruft and OR tinkering, a list on a musical subject with an interpretative criterion is really asking for trouble! Even if we could keep the list clean, I'd still have to ask what purpose it served to the average reader, given that it wouldn't be based on anything authoritative/verifiable that they could look up. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 08:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment P.S. I am a musician (guitar, bass, keyboards). Geĸrίtzl (talk)

Keep article, lose list The article looks sound to me. I share the doubts about the accuracy of the list. Several strike me as being rather more vocal driven than instrumental riff driven. Looks like opinion time there. Not very encyclopaedic. Peridon (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am a musician. Peridon (talk) 16:09, 12 January 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.