Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kite (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 keep Kite (song) and Peace on Earth (U2 song), no consensus on the rest. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Kite (song)
I have nominated this song and others on the U2 album All That You Can't Leave Behind on the basis that that these songs, which were not released as singles nor used in any other way that that would suggest they have notability separate from the album. A lot of these articles also would appear to breach WP:NOR (and have already been tagged as such) and the listing of how many times they've been performed is little short of fancruft even for a band as big as U2. A1octopus 21:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
The other pages nominated for exactly the same reason are:
In a Little While
Peace on Earth (U2 song)
When I Look at the World
New York (song)
Grace (U2 song) A1octopus 21:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - These pages could be redirected to All That You Can't Leave Behind and some of the contents (where they can be verrified as not contrary to WP:NOR and where it would not be in duplicate to what is already there) could be placed there. A1octopus 21:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect per Aloctopus. MSJapan 21:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete In a Little While, When I Look at the World, New York (song) and Grace (U2 song). Keep Kite (song) and Peace on Earth (U2 song). I believe those two songs deserve articles on their own, because of the history behind them (Bono's father's death for "Kite", 9/11 and the Omagh bombings for "Peace on Earth"), even if that content is not quite developed yet. Unfortunately, that does not apply to the others. --Kristbg 22:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep/Delete per Kristgb. --Hemlock Martinis 00:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect: all but Kite into All That You Can't Leave Behind. The rest are not singificant - peace on Earth is more significant than most but not sig enough.Merbabu 14:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep "Kite" and "Peace on Earth". "Kite" is one of U2's most significant songs of recent years in terms of theme and its sound arrangement, and was a big concert production number during the Elevation Tour; its closing reference to the New Media also marks it as a time capsule of sorts. "Peace on Earth" is Bono's big-plea-for-world-piece-number of that album; you could write an article just tracing the political/philosophical evolution found in those songs. The idea that U2 songs should be ranked in notability by the semi-accident of whether they happen to be released as a single in some country or other is very faulty; Bad (U2 song) and Bullet the Blue Sky are far more significant than Staring at the Sun and Original of the Species, for example. Wasted Time R 17:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment: I don't think we should play around with relative notability. (ie, this song compared to that, eytc). The fact is that Bad is notable, it doesn't need to be compared. Kite (as great a song as it is) in terms of notability has nothing on Bad. Furthermore, what is actually gained by having a seperate article? What is the advantage? In fact if anything, if it helps the album article then I'm all for it. Merbabu 12:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I still do not myself see why these two songs cannot be explained on the album's page rather than have separate articles. Peace on Earth already has an unlinked mention on the Omagh Bombing page and there is no reason why that can't be linked to the album. Single release is not the sole criteria for a song to notable independently of its album, but if a song has not been released separately then I contend that it really would have to become properly world famous to warrant its own article and (as lovely as these songs are) I don't think these songs are that well known in circles outside of U2's fans. A1octopus 18:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Further Comment Bullet the Blue Sky on the other hand is a prime example of a song notable indepedently of its album, but if (to pick another example) Trip Through Your Wires doesn't red-link then I shall be looking at Joshua Tree songs shortly as well. A1octopus 18:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment response. If your criteria for notability is "world famous and known by non-U2-fans", then Bullet the Blue Sky and Bad both flunk too. You better merge them back into their album articles, right now! Indeed, there are by Category:U2 songs 116 U2 song articles, and I bet only 15 or so of them are really world famous and known by non-U2-fans. Start cutting and pasting, you have a busy day ahead of you! Wasted Time R 19:38, 6 March 2007
- Oh please not the old "if-you-do-it-to-this-one-then-you-have-to-do-it-to-another-1000" argument. Just cos crap is repeated all through wikipedia, doesn't mean we can't clean up one little bit of crap here. Precedence is the worst of all justifications.Merbabu 12:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- If you whack these articles, but leave Crumbs From Your Table and Love and Peace or Else and Van Diemen's Land (song) and Promenade (song) and all the others living, how will any future U2 editor understand the rationale for what gets a song article and what doesn't? They'll just think, Hey, someone forgot to write the song articles for All That You Can't Leave Behind, and start the articles over again. The crap (in your view) will be back. Wasted Time R 12:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- You could be right, but it's still a lousy justification to keep. I know you know that. I'm not sure what is to be gained in having these articles. Merbabu 12:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- What I know is that if WP keeps its open-door policy, the trend towards infinite levels of detail in popular culture articles is inevitable and unstoppable. But hey, I quit working on music articles a while back (modulo a few obscure exceptions), so I shouldn't even be here. Do what you will. "Kite" will remain a great work of art, whether Wikipedia acknowledges it or not. Wasted Time R 13:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Have you heard the version on Window in the SKys CD? I was there. :-) A great closer. Merbabu 13:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- What I know is that if WP keeps its open-door policy, the trend towards infinite levels of detail in popular culture articles is inevitable and unstoppable. But hey, I quit working on music articles a while back (modulo a few obscure exceptions), so I shouldn't even be here. Do what you will. "Kite" will remain a great work of art, whether Wikipedia acknowledges it or not. Wasted Time R 13:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- PS, i wasn't labelling these article 'crap', just speaking generally about the oft-used excuse. (although, having said that, are they really that much better than crap?) Merbabu 12:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- You could be right, but it's still a lousy justification to keep. I know you know that. I'm not sure what is to be gained in having these articles. Merbabu 12:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- If you whack these articles, but leave Crumbs From Your Table and Love and Peace or Else and Van Diemen's Land (song) and Promenade (song) and all the others living, how will any future U2 editor understand the rationale for what gets a song article and what doesn't? They'll just think, Hey, someone forgot to write the song articles for All That You Can't Leave Behind, and start the articles over again. The crap (in your view) will be back. Wasted Time R 12:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh please not the old "if-you-do-it-to-this-one-then-you-have-to-do-it-to-another-1000" argument. Just cos crap is repeated all through wikipedia, doesn't mean we can't clean up one little bit of crap here. Precedence is the worst of all justifications.Merbabu 12:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment response. If your criteria for notability is "world famous and known by non-U2-fans", then Bullet the Blue Sky and Bad both flunk too. You better merge them back into their album articles, right now! Indeed, there are by Category:U2 songs 116 U2 song articles, and I bet only 15 or so of them are really world famous and known by non-U2-fans. Start cutting and pasting, you have a busy day ahead of you! Wasted Time R 19:38, 6 March 2007
- Comment Surely some kind of track-by-track for each U2 album would work best? That way every and any track could be covered, as well as the album, with 2 articles. Ctrak 23:21, 6th March 2007
(UTC)
- Keep because this song as well as all other U2 songs are perfectly notable. Just because the song was not a single does not mean it is not notable. An article exists for just about every U2 song on every album, and if this one should get deleted, so should all the others. There is no reason to delete this article or any of the other articles for the songs on this album. I even added a citation for this article to further support its importance. There is much to say about this song in its article, therefore it should be kept. –Crashintome4196 04:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete because asserting notability does not make them notable. Significant history of a song to the band is not the same as significance to the world at large. All of this information can be discussed within the album's article. Our policy is generally that non-notable non-singles do not get their own articles. GassyGuy 11:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I know anons don't count for anything, but I have replaced the "original research" claim of "Kite" by a number of references especially to the very valuable and reputable U2 By U2 book. 192.102.82.253 01:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- The "Kite" article now has many additional references, as many people have written about this song. What will it take for you admins to take it off your deletion list? 192.102.82.253 04:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed, it looks very good now. That's exactly why I'm against deleting articles with potential for improvement. I believe "Peace On Earth", with time, can be improved in the same way. --Kristbg 21:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- The "Kite" article now has many additional references, as many people have written about this song. What will it take for you admins to take it off your deletion list? 192.102.82.253 04:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, article has been improved dramatically since the nomination: [1]. Redirect the others if necessary, but deletion is not needed. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 17:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep all - There is sufficient source material to include an attributed, encyclopedic article about the Kite (song) topic. Keep remainder and relist individually. -- Jreferee 18:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep all. Per Jreferee. --Dwaipayan (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: You say keep all but you (like others here) have only provided reasoning to keep Kite. I think people are getting confused, or at least not being clear. regards Merbabu 19:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I could have done the same for "Peace on Earth" and probably "New York" but I chose "Kite" because I like it better. So you are saying whether an article gets deleted or not depends on the whims of what one person writes about? That isn't notability, it's luck. 192.102.82.253 21:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: You say keep all but you (like others here) have only provided reasoning to keep Kite. I think people are getting confused, or at least not being clear. regards Merbabu 19:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- KeepKite. There is enough detail on Kite that can be used (information about its progression live, how the meanings changed, etc.) that would not be kept in the ATYCLB article because it would be too much. I think it should be a song-by-song basis for U2's material. For example, and article about songs like 4th of July, So Cruel, or The Playboy Mansion would be unnecessary, as there is little material that couldn't be given in the respective album articles. But the details found in Kite's article are enough to warrent keeping it. Phillies26 21:41, 13 March 2007 (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.
