Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All in the Family (song)


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

All in the Family (song)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The song is not notable. WP:NSONGS says "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who 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 independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." Also, it has several MOS issues like referencing, and sections that have way to many quotes. It hasn't surpassed stub yet, so even if it were notable, it would still not meet WP:NSONGS. Crowz RSA  21:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The song is notable. It is one of the key Korn songs which generated considerable debates amongst critics. See the 8 or so references provided. Style issues can be fixed through the usual method of editing. Being a stub isn't a reason for deletion either, as Wikipedia is a work in progress. The solution is to expand, not delete. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, WP:NSONGS says articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. Also, the Billboard reference only talks about remixes, The Boston Globe reference talks about structure, the Los Angeles Times reference only says it was a controversial song, but really nothing else. The CMJ reference talks about its structure. The second CMJ reference has some information on the article, but nothing that makes it notable or anything. Crowz  RSA  01:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am not sure what basis there is for asserting that the article is unlikely to ever grow beyond a stub. It is currently pretty long for stub, if not start-class length already (regardless of whether anyone updated its class on the talk page), and even if the class is now borderline, I am not sure what basis there is to think that no sources will emerge in the future to expand the article. Rlendog (talk) 22:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the fact that it isn't a stub does not make it notable, and since it doesn't meet any of the song notability guidelines, it should be deleted, regardless of Headbomb's (who's opinion probably won't change) comment. The only way it could be notable, again, is if it has ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. The rest of WP:NSONGS only goes for songs that are notable, which this one isn't. Crowz  RSA  03:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I don't see that this song charted anywhere, nor does it appear to have won awards of the type contemplated by WP:NSONGS. I see some sources that discuss the song itself, but many of those listed do not. Not sure what to do with this one. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 20:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Fails WP:NSONGS, yes, but that is only a fallback to support articles that otherwise fail the WP:GNG. This passes the general notability guidelines IMO, given the coverage that the controversial lyrics have received.  And it's certainly not a stub any longer, I'm upgrading that to start. Tarc (talk)
 * Where have you gotten the idea that NSONGS is a fallback? And also:
 * "'Significant coverage" - I have learned nothing from this that can be verified except that it is a rhyme duel thing, but unless this is defined in some reference, it cannot be verified either.
 * "Reliable" - Lacks reliability
 * "Sources" - Lacks sources
 * "Independent of the subject" - It meets this, but I think this is more in the deletion category.
 * "Presumed" - I don't think it meets this because only the structure section can be verified.
 * With this in mind, I propose the structure section be merged and the article redirected. Crowz  RSA  23:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep first of all, a song charting is not the end-all be-all factor in a songs "notability". The song has been discussed by multiple sources for multiple reasons, that makes it notable. Secondly, it is far beyond a stub, and that is not a reason to delete, maybe next time see if you can expand it instead, or bring it to the attention of those most familiar with the subject. - Theornamentalist (talk) 17:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, you obviously do not understand either. If the song has charted or has caused a significant amount of controversy to the band, it is notable. If it is notable and it does not surpass a stub, it is should not have its own article. If the song is not notable but its article surpasses a stub, IT SHOULD STILL BE DELETED. And see my comment above posted on 01:25, 8 October 2010 for what the references refer to. Crowz  RSA  21:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please place this under AfD. Actually, this may be more similar, although All in the Family is better referenced. Then be sure to go through this extensive list, they've even listed if the track charted on the page. Be sure to use WP:INHERITED - Sarcastically yours :), Theornamentalist (talk) 23:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't that a little off topic? And just because "other stuff exists", is not a valid argument. Crowz  RSA  23:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm just showing that a strict interpretation doesn't always work. I understand your point, which is valid, but understand mine. This song has had a fairly large amount of coverage; you work on and write GA articles relating to Korn, you are certainly capable of researching and improving it. A quick G Books search shows me that it appears in many publications, many are listings, but some have a large amount of information, like this author, this magazine has a an article on it, and more. That was just some quick looks, there appears to be more. - Theornamentalist (talk) 23:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)\
 * I'm aware of its minor popularity, but many songs on that album alone will get several results. "Dead Bodies Everywhere":, "Reclaim My Place": , "Justin": , "Cameltosis" :. I didn't bother looking any others up but still, just because a song has some books that have published information on them does not make it notable.  Crowz  RSA  00:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And of those, Dead Bodies Everywhere most likely deserves it's own article, and Justin as well [unless memory fails me, this was written after a make-a-wish meet up between a dying kid and Jonathan Davis, so I'm pretty sure it got significant coverage in the news and elsewhere] (unsure about Reclaim my Place and Cameltosis). The sources are also reliable (Billboard, LA Times, CMJ New Music Report, Boston Globe, Rolling Stone, The Advocate, ...) and claiming they somehow aren't without any justification doesn't make them magically unreliable. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So you propose that any song article with a few reliable sources that talk about the song make it notable? That is absurd, and goes against notability guidlines. Someone stated above that the NSONGS is a fallback from general notability guidlines. This is a false statement; general guidlines are not specific guidlines for articles. Each topic has its own criteria of notability it must meet. In this case, you say that "Justin" and the dead bodies song deserve their own article. IT GOES AGAINST NSONGS. How wouldn't it? Just because it has some information on structure available and some critics felt it stirred up contreversy (which I really don't think it did, but examples would be "Jihad (song)" and "Angel of Death (song)" which put the band into a serious situation) and therefore does not meet NSONGS. And when I said it lacks reliable sources I meant it lacked information reliability, which it definitly does. Crowz  RSA  02:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Nominator comment For the record, the only verifiable information on here is a little bit of the song's structure. The rest is quoted in unreliable sources or deadlinks. I don't see why this shouldn't be Merged to the Follow the Leader (Korn album) article's Composition section.
 * Nominator comment So… why has no one commented in three days?
 * 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.