Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Napalm Sticks to Kids

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 (non-admin closure). The consensus of the discussion below is that the song and phrase are emblematic of a particular aspect of America's war in Vietnam, and is used in a variety of books and news sources to represent that aspect. Darkspots (talk) 02:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Napalm Sticks to Kids

Napalm Sticks to Kids (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Delete for lack of Notability. This article is about a partial phrase in a song. It is not referenced well and does not have nearly enough material to be considered a complete article. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep. This seems to be a significant song; I've found mentions (I can't get at the full articles to see their quality; hence the "weak" part) in a Google Scholar search. As an aside, what a gruesome song; the irony of reading the lyrics on Memorial Day is somewhat overwhelming. AnturiaethwrTalk 22:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Can I ask why you feel it is significant? There are a lot of stupid lines in military cadences. Should we have an entry for "Eskimo p*ssy is mighty cold"? It WAS in a cadence and it WAS uttered in a movie (Full Metal Jacket), so it is as notable as this, right? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm really just giving it the benefit of the doubt since the only reliable sources I can find (the Google Scholar results, and not all of them) are unavailable to me: it looks like the song has been studied as folklore, but I can't be sure. I'm not at all willing to mount an active defense of the article. AnturiaethwrTalk 03:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. This is notable because it is referenced by reliable sources such as the article in the Journal of American Folklore cited in the article, these books and these news sources. It's also not just "a partial phrase in a song": it's the title by which the song is known. The fact that it "does not have nearly enough material to be considered a complete article" is not a reason to delete. By that logic we would delete every article in Wikipedia, because no article is ever complete. And finally we are here to discuss this article: whether or not we should have an article on another song is irrelevant, but anyway I would say that the song mentioned above is also notable. [1] [2] Phil Bridger (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Its existence is not in dispute. But the mere mention of it in articles and books doesn't make it notable in my mind. What can be said about it? 3 sentences? Also, at least 2 of your sources we listing a band that uses that phrase as a name. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not the "mere mention of it". Many of those references discuss the song as an example of how troops are dehumanised. Just because "at least 2" of those sources might not be relevant it doesn't invalidate the others. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep the use of a song as emblematic or iconic of an historical period makes it notable, when documented, as it is here. DGG (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep many songs don't merit coverage, but argument above convinces me this one does. Geo Swan (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2008 (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.