Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intro/Bomb First (My Second Reply)

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. Chick Bowen 01:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intro/Bomb First (My Second Reply) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

A song that was never released as a single. Unlike tracks of the album-oriented rock era, these songs do not warrant articles if they were never released as a single. Reading the actual content, it looks even less like an article about a song, and more like another one of those rap feuds articles ♠ SG →Talk 00:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems like I should note for those of you voting keep: Wikipedia is not a democracy. Votes don't matter, it's the discussion that counts. The issues raised about the aforementioned article have not been addressed. If you want to claim "significant coverage" or "needz afew more refs", then hurry up and provide those references -- not fan sites and lyrics. No one is denying that the East Coast-West Coast rivalry isn't notable. It was an important point in hip hop history. This AfD is about a single track which was never released a single. I also find it highly amusing that all of the users who voted to keep have either "G-Unit" or "gangsta" on their user page. ♠ SG →Talk 20:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - ur a funny human. really! How is the discussion the final deal? If i could understand why one of the discussion sides win in the end i would be happy. OK, i want the Pete Rock article for deletion because i think he is crap and a disgrace. The sources doesent say shit there? Happy? lol. West Coast Ryda 21:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't accept votes because it's relatively simple to go up to anyone and ask them to vote on a matter, thus swaying the result. On the other hand, proper consensus can be gained via actual discussion. This article has no sources, did not chart, and was not covered in mass media; thus, it does not meet notability criteria. Many people dislike Pete Rock, some hate The Beatles. You can nominate them for AfD, but as charting artists with sources to back that up, you'll be hard pressed finding people to delete those articles. ♠ SG →Talk 01:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Are u admin or what? If u r i could understand but if you ain't how can u say "We". it would be outrageous if ur not one. Anyways why would the "delete" said have the right to decide that the discussion is for theirs? pathetic. West Coast Ryda 09:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can everyone stop calling each other names for a minute? I am an admin, and I can assure you that this isn't a simple "vote". What matters is whether there are sourced provided demonstrating the notability of the song. See this guideline for what I'm talking about here. At the end of the 5-day period of discussion, another admin (not me, since I've already had input into this discussion) is going to come along and see what's what. If there's evidence that the song is notable, it'll be kept pretty much regardless of numbers. If there's not, it'll be deleted pretty much regardless of numbers. If this means that you've been directing your energies towards getting more "votes" in an effort to secure a "majority" instead of towards finding and adding sources, then I apologise. I've tried to communicate this on a number of occasions, though. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• But what the hell is source? West Coast Ryda 16:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is a source? The best definition is at this page. In short, something discussing the song (rather than just providing the lyrics) in a significant manner (rather than just as one of the several thousand songs Tupac recorded) is a source. The best kind of sources, according to that page, are books and scholarly journal articles, but there are others. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete poorly sourced, non notable. Sefringle^Talk 01:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom with a bit of OR and speculation thrown in for seasoning. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As it doesent violate any AfD. It doesent need to be a single so it is kept. It is explaining the song not feuds etc.. so if it is really poor sourced then look at the lyrics. Do we need source for the title of the song soon? West Coast Ryda and Talk to Me 13:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It was a notable song as it had alot controversy surrounding it, and it doesn't have to be a single to have an article. It just needs afew more refs and maybe abit of clean-up - keep it real - Real Compton G - Holla back 18:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - How is it looking now after a few clean up's? West Coast Ryda and Talk to Me 18:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment-Looks like a good article, No need to delete. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 23:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-notable song. --- Who's the one you call Mr. Macho? The head honcho, swift fist like Camacho 02:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No reliable in-depth sources to establish notability, only a lyric and fan site. The info can easily be mentioned in The Don Killuminati: The 7 Day Theory. Spellcast 07:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The feud mentioned may be notable, although I have my doubts. One particular song connected to said feud doesn't seem to be, and with these references I don't see anything which changes my mind. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - i took hour to make this article this good, is the main reason to delete this, sources and rivality relations? I can fix a few sources if it's what y'all might be hungry for wtf.. West Coast Ryda and Talk to Me 14:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What there needs to be is evidence that this particular song was discussed in independent, reliable sources. A lot of people have said that it was, but there's no evidence provided that this was the case. It's the same threshold requirement that any other article requires. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment- Dead Wrong, Why would you betray us like this? I personally like the article and think it should be kept, but the administrators will most likely delete even though there is nothing wrong wit it, just like they did Lil' Eazy-E. SameAsItEverWas 18:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Betray? You're funny kid. I'm not going to say keep just because all other hip-hop fans say keep, I say keep only when the article really deserves to be kept. --- Who's the one you call Mr. Macho? The head honcho, swift fist like Camacho 21:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lil Eazy-E has not released anything beyond mixtapes, and even then, they didn't garner immense attention. If we go by those standards, any random kid with a mic would have their own Wikipedia article for being a rapper. ♠ SG →Talk 04:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep no reason to delete, it was a huge diss song, there is no reason to delete this just like there was no reason to delete the G unit feuds article--Yankees10 22:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason to delete has been made clear, namely the lack of independent reliable evidence that the song was notable. You can say that it was a huge diss song all you like, but evidence demonstrating that is needed somewhere along the line. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The article looks pretty good, it just needz afew more refs --Brooklyn Soldier 20:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep-Because of in depth information. Fulfills WP:MUSIC as well as WP:N with "Significant coverage". Just needs tagging and more sources. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 21:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is no "significant coverage". The song didn't chart, didn't win any honors or awards, and hasn't been performed independently by other notable bands/musicians. There's not a single reliable source cited, only lyric and fan sites. Spellcast 08:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- BigHaz, You doubt that the Biggie/Pac feud is notable? Anyway this article should in fact be kept.SameAsItEverWas 16:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did I say that? No. What I said was that the feud may well be notable. At the time I made that comment, the article seemed to be about a feud between Tupac and Xzibit, which is no longer the case. Regardless, the notability of the feud doesn't (as I said earlier) confer any notability on any particular song involved in the feud. Additionally, you may wish to provide a rationale for your advocation of "keep". BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - 2pac vs xzibit? u serious? EDI Mean said a line about Xzibit and it was not 2pac who was rapping then. It doesent make the page about a feud with 2pac and xzibit. West Coast Ryda 09:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, I'm being misquoted. What I said was that at the time I made that comment (i.e. the article now reads somewhat differently to the way in which it did when I made that comment), the article seemed to be about a feud between those two people (i.e. it may not have conveyed that opinion to every single person who read the article). The article was in an atrocious state when I made my comment, so it's perhaps not surprising that I thought it related to a different feud. Nonetheless, my comment regarding the notability of this particular song still stands - regardless of the notability of any feud that it might be about, non-trivial, reliable third-party sources discussing the song are required. They still aren't here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - Yo, when does this debate finish ? - Keep It Real - Real Compton G 18:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Normally, AfDs last for five days, so this would have ended on Sept 24 by my count. Given that it's now late on Sept 26 Wikipedia time, I'd expect it to end as soon as an admin sees the page as being unresolved. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Final - So what's the final result? deletion or keep?... West Coast Ryda 14:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My AfD experience tells me this will be deleted. Almost all the keep votes have nothing to do with policy, only vague assertions about the song being notable. None of the reasons for deletion have been addressed yet; there's still no reliable source cited and there's still some original research sprinkled in. Remember, you can seek a deletion review and re-create the article once you find in-depth reliable references, not lyric and fan sites. Spellcast 16:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, after Nov 2 (by which point my other commitments for the year will be done and dusted), I'd be more than happy to help out with locating sources for a recreation of this article or any other. I don't guarantee it'll result in sources being found, but I'll do what I can. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Also, this song was never released as a single. Seems that the creator of the article likes to create pages a bout songs that he loves to hear.--Tasc0 23:27, 27 September 2007 (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.