Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal Behavior (Praxis single)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 delete. This has been relisted twice and while there has been quite a bit of work on the article during its listing, the delete !votes are still coming in. As such, clearly the improved sources have been weighed in the balance and found wanting. Stifle (talk) 11:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Behavior (Praxis single)

edit
Animal Behavior (Praxis single) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

It doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Rockfang (talk) 14:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did Gesang der Jünglinge chart, did it get any awards, were there any notable covers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.228.86.51 (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Didn't chart. Fails WP:RS. Fails WP:MUSIC#SONGS. Lyrics don't confirm notability. Undead Warrior (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here you may have your sources:
      • Alternative Press (12/92, p.66) - "..Most contrived jam records are comatose on the couch of ego but the Praxis project works because it works on the same principle John Zorn applies with Naked City: if you don't like it, hang tough, it's gonna change soon anyway.."
      • Vibe (Fall/92, p.32) - "..master bass plucker Bootsy Collins and grand keyboard wizard Bernie Worrell perform a mind-boggling feat of musical alchemy...[they] stretch boundaries and cross borders with ease...applies blast after blast of funky heat to solid hard rock.."
      • Reflex (12/15/92, p.73) - "..A tasty amalgam of hip-hop, funk, house, and stone virtuosity, these musicians just jam.."
      • NME (Magazine) (10/10/92, p.40) - "..Bootsy Collins and company all thundering the funk out of a set of tunes that sound as though they were composed on mars...could be the biggest thing since Disposable Heroes Of Hiphoprisy.." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.228.59.136 (talk) 21:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HexaChord (talk • contribs)
Because it hasn't charted and there is no reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with the sources mentioned above and used for the article? BMI and Allmusic are listen on WP:Music, NME, Alternative Press and VIBE are notable enough to have an article here. Shall I really list songs that also did not chart? One was mentioned above. Man, what kind of discussion is this? It seems more like "Oh, I don't know it, oh, let's delete it..." ---hexaChord2 23:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The BMI link and the Allmusic link is trivial and I can't read the sources mentioned above so I can't tell if they are trivial or not. Schuym1 (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it as simple as: Tell me what you want (in clear words!) and I'll bring. I'm getting tired of playing hide and seek. ---hexaChord2 00:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting tired of replying to you because you won't understand. I thought that I made it clear on your talk page. Schuym1 (talk) 00:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've already read WP:NOTABILITY. There is significant coverage, the sources are reliable and independent. Tell me if not. ---hexaChord2 01:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sites are reliable, but it isn't significant coverage. A list of publishers and a list of songs is not significant coverage. I'm done explaining it because I don't care if you understand, I only care if the closing admin understands so I am done replying to you. Schuym1 (talk) 01:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You want the article to be deleted, at least you have to explain why. It's a discussion and not a simple voting. And you have to give me a chance to improve the article to a point that it will not be deleted. We came from "no sources at all", had "no reliable sources" and now it's the coverage which is "not significant enough". That's a good way. ---hexaChord2 02:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would continue to explain, but I don't think that I can explain it in a way that you can understand. I know that's it's not a simple voting. Don't tell me that I didn't explain because I did, you just don't get it. Schuym1 (talk) 02:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you just tell me how many sources you think are needed to justify "significance". How many do we have already? Keep it simple! ---hexaChord2 06:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:MUSIC#Songs just because it dindt make it into any charts does not means that it doesnt care, just menas it cares to less people, also the single was so rare that if someone expects to find a source that is reliable why dont you look on Bill Laswell page on his page he has a large ammount of his discography and the single does appear, there isnt anything more reliable that the page of one of the artist himself. I think that the "mainstream" thinking that you have wont let you make a fair desition, will you also tell me that every album that wasnt charted on lists, didnt win an awards, or didnt have notable covers will be erased too, every of this singles are part of the informartion abou the album and the artist. Too bad that they didnt get recognized for this single but also you want to delete information that maybe other people would want to know.--Pachon (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE TO ADMIN: When the article was nominated for deletion it looked like this, when it was relisted it had changed to this and now it looks like this. It should be clear that the main editors are willing to improve the article as best as they can. Additionally there is a will to improve the article further if only we are told what exctly has to be improved or changed. Thanks. ---hexaChord2 08:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Praxis are awesome, however, this particular single has had no coverage from any source outside of the band members or there personal labels influence. When it hits a notable chart, in any format, it'll definetly become noteworthy. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 04:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If MTV and this book plus the already mentioned sources are "no coverage from any source outside..." - ehm - what sources do you want? The Pope? Forget about "charts", we all know Praxis is not mainstream. Does this change their notability? If it's not notable as a single (in commercial terms) it still can be notable as a song in its own right. ---hexaChord2 13:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment What mention by MTV? As for the book, a trivial passing mention is great as a source of information for the article, but something substantial, and specifically dedicated to the single would make for a much better reference to notability. Praxis are indeed not mainstream, however, they still establish notability, just as the single can without becoming mainstream. The status of the band is not in question, simply this single. Also, unless you Pink Floyd songs don't usually get separate articles, and that required significant notability for each song. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 15:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It was played on MTV which is clearly against your "no coverage" thesis. With the book it's the same. This is clearly not "no coverage". ---hexaChord2 22:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Time on TV does not make for significant coverage. A huge number of bands without articles (and not deserving of articles) have had time on TV, nevermind the specific singles. That is not "coverage" of the band in the sense that establishes notability. As for the book, I haven't read it, but clearly there is no section dedicated to the single, it's name is simply dropped in a passage. "Coverage" isn't just a matter of existence of facts or use of a name in passing mention, it's a dedicated and significant reference, aimed directly at, and existing for the purpose of the topic. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect: Charting is not the only notability criterion for music. I quote: "Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article is only appropriate on a song when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." 1) There is enough material available to write a reasonably detailed article. 2) The song didn't chart, win any awards or get performed by several notable bands. 3) The band article does not yet suffer space constraints. Therefore, I believe merging it to the band article is best. - Mgm|(talk) 15:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merging is the best offer I've read so far on the whole page. That's miles away from "Let's delete this avant-garde garbage asap." I still think the song deserves an own article and am pretty sure it could be a very good article if a native speaker would spend a few minutes on it. ---hexaChord2 22:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sufficiently referenced and sufficiently informative to keep here. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The fact the topic is sufficient to be here is the usual reason for a keep argument... however, do you have any actual reasoning? Like some references that weren't added to the article and which don't appear on google when I search it? This isn't really a vote, people put forward reasoning and it's discussed. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:NSONGS as all the reliable sources (apart from the Allmusic one) are self-published sources which fail the reliable sources guidelines. The remaining Allmusic reference discusses an album which contains the single and doesn't discuss the single "directly in detail" per the general notability guideline. --JD554 (talk) 10:58, 17 December 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Animal_Behavior_(Praxis_single)&oldid=1140162001"