Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Signature Song

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP - a couple more keep votes than deletes; delete voters seem to be objecting to a list as unverifiable; therefore, I'm going to remove the examples and leave the explanation of concept. -- Jonel | Speak 07:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Signature Song

Dicdef, no potential for expansion, except for the potential of a useless and unverifiable list of "signature songs"—Wahoofive (talk) 04:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry, I disagree. Keep. Notable concept, and not expressed here as merely a list of songs (although a few examples would be nice). -- BD2412 ^talk 04:37, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
• Keep, notable concept. I added a few examples. Kappa 06:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Great, now it's a dicdef with some examples of somebody's favorite songs. How did you decide that "Purple Haze" is the Jimi Hendrix signature song (as opposed to, say, the Star-Spangled Banner)? Maple Leaf Rag is a much better-known song by Scott Joplin than The Entertainer, although the latter got a bunch of attention by being used in The Sting. All you did was add the song you know best by each performer. Six months from now it will be a random selection of people's favorite songs from their favorite bands. There's no verifiability for this list. You just made the article much worse by adding these. Without those it's still a dicdef.—Wahoofive (talk) 15:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I got 3 of them, including Purple Haze, by googling "signature song" and knowing that they had articles. Someone else had already added "signature song" to Respect (song) so that's not just my opinion. Is it controversial? You seem to be right about The Entertainer, so I'll that out, using the magic of an editable wiki. Kappa 16:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• I don't have a particular opinion on this, but I would like to see it moved to Signature song (note the lower case s in "song"). Mgm|^(talk) 08:22, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Nevermind, just moved it myself. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:24, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Pretty good article now, notable concept. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Notable concept. Capitalistroadster 17:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• No vote at present but lists like this generally degenerate into crap as people add whatever song comes into their head. I can easily see this becoming a list of one-hit wonders, for instance.. -R. fiend 17:37, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable and subjective. After Kappa's refusal this spring to accept the concept "answer songs" (often discussed on radio shows such as Blues Before Midnight) as being distinct from "referential songs", I have a hard time with his claim that "signature songs" are well-defined and encyclopedic. Barno 19:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Um I claimed that answer songs are a subset of "songs which refer to other songs", is that concept hard to grasp? Kappa 19:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - far too subjective to ever be encyclopedic. Which is Styx's "signature song," Babe or Mr. Roboto or Blue Collar Man (Long Nights) or...? See where this is going? --FCYTravis 22:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I see that you would either leave Styx off the list or remove the Examples section. How does that equate to delete the article itself? DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article itself is an encyclopedic explanation. The four examples only serve to clarify the concept more. This article should not devolve to an unverifiable list of signature songs. Should the examples be controversial, just remove that section. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep although I also share R. fiend's concern about this becoming a list of one-hit wonders. Hopefully editors will boldly remove songs that are not really signature songs, although as FCYTravis says, it is not very objective. In my mind, a signature song means the one song that a popular and well-established singer (a much higher standard than merely a "notable" singer) is identified with even though he has had success with a variety of songs. I don't really understand what the current article means when it talks about songs the artist is "praised" for. DS1953 23:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • and by the way, in my opinion, many, if not most, well established artists are known by their body of work and have no "signature song". DS1953 23:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • This is the problem, we need someone who's had more than one hit (because, let's face it, "567-5309 Jenny" is not the sort of thing we need in this article) but they have to be widely known for one song above all else, but not too much above all else (or we're back in the one hit wonder grey area). I'm sure someone will add Tom Jones singing "It's Not Unusual" and I have no idea if that's enough above the hits like "Delilah" or "What's New Pussycat" to qualify, and I can see debates going on about such things (if anyone cares). These things are always tricky. And I still don't think anyone's taken care of the needed work on the cult musician article, which has similar issues. -R. fiend 02:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • How will you and DoubleBlue make this verifiable?—Wahoofive (talk) 23:56, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • DS1953, I like your explanation better: "the one song that a popular and well-established singer is identified with even though he has had success with a variety of songs." Will you edit the article to make this improvement? DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I'll give it a stab as soon as I get my real work done for the day... DS1953 00:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Wahoofive, I don't think a list is verifiable (although I think the example of "I Left my Heart in San Francisco" and Tony Bennett would gain almost universal acceptance as a "signature song") but I think an explanation with a few examples is verfifiable (i.e., the concept of a signature song is valid). I am not proposing a list of signature songs and I would hope (maybe unreasonably) that additions that don't garner almost universal agreement should be removed. DS1953 00:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Wahoofive, TonyBennett.net: "his now renowned signature song, 'I Left My Heart In San Francisco'", BBC News: "Franklin ... best known for her signature song Respect.", 45s.com:"'The Wanderer' ... is considered to be Dion's signature song." Hendrix is less clear; though google supports "Purple Haze". I can see how it could become problematic and wouldn't mind if the examples section was removed. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, I hope you're right. I have visions of revert wars everytime somebody adds the latest top-40 hit. Without the list it's still just a dicdef (and a pretty clumsy one at that: "an artist may have one or many signature songs..."). I don't deny the concept exists but I can't see this becoming encyclopedic.—Wahoofive (talk) 01:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep valid concept. A useful list may emerge, but that would be at a linked page (List of...), rather than at this one. Grutness...wha? 02:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • A separate list? That's the worst idea yet. -R. fiend 03:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep with a cleanup of the text towards a cleaner definition. I'm not sure about keeping the examples, but then I don't think we need a list either. Vegaswikian 05:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this list is very POV subjective and quite possibly unmaintainable. JamesBurns 07:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This screams subjectivity. Some songs by an artist are more popular in one market than another. --Madchester 17:19, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a really bad idea for all the reasons given by the delete voters. Look at the article, after keep voters have improved it. "A signature song is a song considered to be the best material produced by an artist when they are at their artistic peak." -- considered best by who? Who says when they are at their artistic peak? "These songs are often praised by a particular performance of them by an artist at a concert or other event of significance." -- how is a song praised by a performance? I don't understand that sentence. "An artist can have one or many signature songs and they can have different signature songs in different parts of the world depending on where they are praised." -- lovely. One or many. How about I just say that all 38 of Elvis Presley's top 10 hits were his signature songs. I see no hope of verifiability of this ultra-subjective categorization, and not verifiable means not encyclopedic. Once the unverifiable material is removed all that's left is a dicdef. Quale 09:47, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.