Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Du Bist
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 a pile of Keeps - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Du Bist
NN fancruft Stanfordandson 06:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge into Tie Break. Seems like Eurovisonfancruft is notable. ~ trialsanderrors 07:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - it's part of the relevant WikiProject. Before anyone talks about redlinks, they'll be gone by the end of the process. BigHaz 08:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- An article being part of a WikiProject is not a valid reason to keep it. Stanfordandson 10:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Just for clarification, is the Project standard that the artist should be included or the song? Imho there's no reason to do both, especially since 99.5% are one-appearance wonders. Put an article on the artist out if you will, feature the song prominently on it, but listing artist and song separately is cruft. ~ trialsanderrors 16:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- The Project standard was to make separate articles for "[Country] in the Eurovision Song Contest [Year]", however given that a number of artists (not all of them winners by any means) already have their separate pages, I think making a separate page for each song, rather than the general appearance makes more sense. What would otherwise appear on the would-be page can then be moved to the song page. BigHaz 22:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- In view of the above, I've tracked down the source for the notability of the song (the protest against its length) and added same to the article. My vote of Keep remains, but now because it's more notable. BigHaz 12:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep - It is a song which has won a national competition, the Austrian selections for the Eurovision Song Contest, which would mean that it satisifed most of the criteria in the songs policy proposal at least. The selection is via some kind of TV show, and is at least as notable as a national version of Idol. Also, I need sources, but during the commentary in 2004 when this song was at ESC, the commentator noted that it was apparently close to being the subject of legal action by the second place group, as the song lasted 3m 9sec? and the rules stated that the maximum length was 3 minutes.Blnguyen | rant-line 08:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- If having a page about the song could potentially subject Wikipedia to legal action, that's even more reason to delete it. Stanfordandson 10:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- With respect, you've missed the point of Blnguyen's post. The "legal action" was a reference to the fact that the song was either subject to legal action or going to be subject to it (I'm trying to find a source on that to find out whether anything was filed). By having an article on it, Wikipedia isn't going to be subject to anything. BigHaz 11:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Huh? A song can't be subject to legal action. Wikipedia can be. Stanfordandson 18:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- A song can very easily be subject to legal action. My Sweet Lord and Bittersweet Symphony are probably the two most famous examples of cases in which the recording artist was accused of plagiarism. As part of the judgement in the latter case, the money earned by the band was forfeit. Also see the case of The Gray Album, in which an entire album was subject to legal action. In the case of this particular song, the fact that it had gone over the 3-minute mark was in fact the subject of a legal challenge. The external link in the article makes this quite clear. Further, I'm yet to see what makes you think that Wikipedia is remotely in danger of legal action as a result of hosting this article. BigHaz 22:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- The recording artists were accused of plaguirism, not the song. In this case, hosting the article may subject not the song but Wikipedia to legal action, considering Blnguyen's post. Stanfordandson 02:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- I never said that - I said that the groups involved in this song was subject to legal action - which caused extra controversy and notability for this already notable song - what does this have to do with WP having legal action taken against it.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- And if you want to split hairs about it, fine. The song (specifically whether or not it was plagiarised and whether or not it exceeded the length allows) "was the subject of legal action". The performers "were subject to legal action" and the song "was the subject of legal action". Happy? BigHaz 03:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- The recording artists were accused of plaguirism, not the song. In this case, hosting the article may subject not the song but Wikipedia to legal action, considering Blnguyen's post. Stanfordandson 02:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- A song can very easily be subject to legal action. My Sweet Lord and Bittersweet Symphony are probably the two most famous examples of cases in which the recording artist was accused of plagiarism. As part of the judgement in the latter case, the money earned by the band was forfeit. Also see the case of The Gray Album, in which an entire album was subject to legal action. In the case of this particular song, the fact that it had gone over the 3-minute mark was in fact the subject of a legal challenge. The external link in the article makes this quite clear. Further, I'm yet to see what makes you think that Wikipedia is remotely in danger of legal action as a result of hosting this article. BigHaz 22:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- Huh? A song can't be subject to legal action. Wikipedia can be. Stanfordandson 18:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- With respect, you've missed the point of Blnguyen's post. The "legal action" was a reference to the fact that the song was either subject to legal action or going to be subject to it (I'm trying to find a source on that to find out whether anything was filed). By having an article on it, Wikipedia isn't going to be subject to anything. BigHaz 11:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- If having a page about the song could potentially subject Wikipedia to legal action, that's even more reason to delete it. Stanfordandson 10:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep or delete all the Eurovision Song Festival contestants (which would be a pity of the hard work done by the editors). The Eurovision Song contest is one of the biggest TV events in Europe, so an appearance there does give notability to a song. The contents of the article seem verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs) .
-
- Comment - Well, I don't think the latter option to delete all contestants is feasible. The ESC is a major competition and event across Europe and in the case of Marie N and probably other winners as well, she was feted with a parade on her return to Riga, Latvia as well as a presidential reception, et al. Finalists in American Idol are routinely kept, and this is equivalent to winning European Idol, let alone being just a participant. Blnguyen | rant-line 00:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- If merely being part of a major TV event was enough to give an article notability, we'd presumably have to have dozens of editors sitting day and night in rooms filled with hundreds of televisions writing millions of articles about things no-one could possibly care about. Sorry, but that simply isn't a criteria that can be used to prove notability. I'm also worried about the informality of the name 'Du Bist', as this is an encyclopaedia and is deserving of formal language. If we do keep this article, I strongly recommend we move it to the formal equivalent and redirect Du Bist. Stanfordandson 10:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- No, it was not "merely being part of a major TV event", it was the winning entry in a nationally televised competition - which would be the equivalent of Austrian Idol. As for the legal action, it was considered by the second placed artist(s) as they believed that Tie-break's victory was invalid.Blnguyen | rant-line 23:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Not quite sure what you mean about "the informality of the name" here, since that's actually the name of the song in question. To rename the article "Sie Sind" (which would be the formal equivalent of the song title) would be silly in the extreme, since that isn't what it's called and neither would it make sense to call the song that. It would be like going through a back catalogue of jazz or blues songs and renaming "Is You Is Or Is You Ain't My Baby?" to "Are You Or Aren't You My Love Interest?" BigHaz 11:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'd also suggest that the "dozens of editors sitting day and night...writing millions of articles about things nobody could possibly care about" is kind of what goes on at Wikipedia anyway. You mightn't be a fan of this particular event and its songs/artists/whatever, but other people are. Likewise, there are articles on all kinds of other aspects of popular culture and otherwise. I could argue that some of the articles on actors, actresses and computer games which have even reached Featured Article status are "things nobody could possibly care about", but patently they are.
- If we do keep this article, I strongly recommend we move it to the formal equivalent and redirect Du Bist. With all due deference, this might be the most
cluelessuninformed comment I ever read on WP. The name of the song is Du bist, which is standard German for addressing a friend, relative or lover. ~ trialsanderrors 16:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)- This is exactly my point. Is Wikipedia addressing its reader as though they were a 'friend, relative, or [God forbid!] lover'? Nope. Wikipedia is not any of those things. Also see WP:MoS and WP:NPA.
- Wikipedia isn't addressing its reader in any particular manner, particularly not if (as you say later on) the native language of the wiki is English. It's the title of the song that we're talking about. I didn't choose the title of the song, but given the subject matter I would've chosen something similar if it had been my responsibility. The article makes it perfectly clear that it's a song and nothing else. Would an article on the song "Is You Is Or Is You Ain't My Baby?" be construed as the Wikipedia asking its readers if they want to have a relationship with it? I would sincerely hope not. BigHaz 22:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I don't get your point at all. If we keep the article, why would we move it to another title? What title, what article name, do you suppose someone will look for when coming here? I don't see anything in the Manual of Style that suggests that we have to use a different title because it is too informal... Will you also propose to change things like Ain't, Ain't Too Proud to Beg, Gimme Shelter, or Gimme! Gimme! Gimme! (A Man After Midnight)? Fram 14:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'd suggest we move it to Sie Sind. The MoS does indeed recommend against using informal, unexcyclopaedic language, and indeed we put this advice into practice. DXM, for example, redirects to Dextromethorphan and not the other way around even though 'DXM' is the much more popular term, because, while popular, it is also informal. Stanfordandson 16:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- Have you looked at mu examples? They are much more relevant. You give an example of a thing that has both a formal and an informal name. This (a song) is not comparable. Would you actually redirect Gimme Shelter to [[Give Me Shelter]? If there is a formal and an informal name, use the formal one. If there is only one title (as with most songs), use the title and be done with it. Fram 18:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- The difference is that the examples you cite are in English, the 'native' language of this wiki. Since this is the case, the titles lend special artistic meaning that should not be modified. However, most English speakers do not know German, and so the title is bereft of any artistic meaning and, not having any overriding reason to do otherwise, we ought to use the formal version. Stanfordandson 18:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- Have you looked at mu examples? They are much more relevant. You give an example of a thing that has both a formal and an informal name. This (a song) is not comparable. Would you actually redirect Gimme Shelter to [[Give Me Shelter]? If there is a formal and an informal name, use the formal one. If there is only one title (as with most songs), use the title and be done with it. Fram 18:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'd suggest we move it to Sie Sind. The MoS does indeed recommend against using informal, unexcyclopaedic language, and indeed we put this advice into practice. DXM, for example, redirects to Dextromethorphan and not the other way around even though 'DXM' is the much more popular term, because, while popular, it is also informal. Stanfordandson 16:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- This is exactly my point. Is Wikipedia addressing its reader as though they were a 'friend, relative, or [God forbid!] lover'? Nope. Wikipedia is not any of those things. Also see WP:MoS and WP:NPA.
-
- Keep as is, notable per Blnguyen. Royalbroil 00:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Please familiarise yourself more with the encyclopaedia before trying to rid it of material. Grace Note 01:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong and obvious keep, per precedent, per notability, per Google test, per Blnguyen, etc. Vizjim 09:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- 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.
