Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blackout (David Bowie 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. (non-admin closure)  D My Son  04:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Blackout (David Bowie song)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A not-that-notable track from Bowie's 1977 album "Heroes". While it does have a few reliable sources, the information present can easily be added into the album article, which I plan to expand upon one of these days. Other than that it doesn't appear to be notable in its own right. – zmbro (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Is it your opinion that the only notable track is the title track? I see that every track has an article... Caro7200 (talk) 19:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. If any other track besides the title track deserved a standalone article it would be "Beauty and the Beast", as it was the second single off the album. However, where a few other song articles currently stand it appears ones like this one don't have notability enough for an article. Although I am a person who enjoys seeing articles for every song, I understand that that's not how this site works. Almost every song from Bowie's 1970s output has its own article, but of course, that doesn't mean every single one deserves their own article. – zmbro (talk) 19:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  userdude 19:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect to "Heroes" (David Bowie album) – no reason why it shouldn't be redirected to its parent album. Richard3120 (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect to "Heroes" (David Bowie album) per WP:NSONGS. Please note that “all the other songs of the album have articles” is not a valid reason to keep a song article. If anything, it’s likely a explanation as to why someone erroneously created it. Sergecross73   msg me  21:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to "Heroes" (David Bowie album): Not all songs in the album are notable. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 06:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Why not? And even if not all songs in the album are notable, why is this particular song not notable? Rlendog (talk) 01:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , per reasons stated by the users above who have the same vote as mine. I won't explain any further and this also applies to similar recent AfDs I voted on. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 05:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - None of the arguments above get to the issue of whether this song meets our notability guidelines or not. From my own bookshelves, Peter Doggett's The Man Who Sold the World, Nicholas Pegg's The Complete David Bowie and David Buckley's The Complete Guide to the Music of David Bowie all have an entry specifically on this song.  James Perone's The Words and Music of David Bowie has a good size paragraph analyzing the song.  A Google Books search shows other sources, such as Experiencing David Bowie: A Listener's Companion.  I am sure there are plenty more given that this is a song from more than 40 years ago (and 2 additional references are already in the article) but this is enough to demonstrate notability. Rlendog (talk) 01:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * People have cited NSONGS, which is a valid reason for redirecting. Regardless of sourcing, (which is very weak) there’s very little content present. It’s a list if a couple live performances and a couple generic factoids and trivia. (With gems like “Bowie says the song ‘Blackout’ is about Blackouts”. Gee, thanks.) When there’s very little to be said if a song, NSONGS says to just cover it in the context of its album article. Unless someone starts doing some serious expansion, redirect is a pretty common route here. Sergecross73   msg me  23:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The current state of the article is not great, but there is material with which to expand the article. Per NSONGS, "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject[1] of multiple,[2] non-trivial[3] published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label."  And this song has been. Rlendog (talk) 12:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you're willing to expand the article with the sources you have, I'll be happy to change my vote. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't really agree with the reasoning that these Bowie songs are "the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works". The whole point of the first three books cited above is that they have a section for every single Bowie song. So the song is not the subject of the work, and following that logic, every single Bowie song would be notable enough for its own article, even the obscure ones from his pre-fame days in the 1960s, because every one of them has their own section within the book... of course they do, that's the point of the books. Perone's book only analyses the song within the context of the album, I believe. There is no indication at all from any of the books that this song is notable outside of its parent album – there is a WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES argument above that there will be more coverage from 1977–78, but there's no reason to believe this is true... the books above are pretty exhaustively researched using media from the time and they still haven't come up with much in the way of concrete facts for the nominated songs, just a brief quote or two from Bowie himself and speculation from critics. Unless there is any chance at all that this article could be expanded to more than a stub of a couple of paragraphs, I honestly believe it's more of a hindrance than a help to spin out every song on the album into a separate article – apart from now having to maintain a dozen articles instead of one, most of the songs on the second sides of both the Low and "Heroes" albums are instrumental "mood pieces", and I believe it makes much more sense to discuss the background and context of these instrumentals all together within the context of the album article, rather than separately. Undoubtedly some Bowie album tracks are worthy of their own articles – the nominator has been responsible for improving "Station to Station (song)" and "Ziggy Stardust (song)" to GA status, for example (so I doubt they would have nominated these particular songs if they thought there was a chance of substantially improving them), and there are probably others like "The Bewlay Brothers" which could conceivably make a substantial article in the future. But not every album track will meet this possibility. Richard3120 (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with Richard. I own Pegg, Doggett, O'Leary, Cann and Buckley's Strange Fascination and while each one of these books goes into detail regarding every track, the amount of detail in each varies substantially. While Pegg has devoted pages worth of writing to songs like "Life on Mars?", he writes about the Diamond Dogs deep cut "Big Brother" for only 3 paragraphs and that currently has its own page. Pegg even calls the track "We are the Dead" "one of the most criminally underrated songs in the entire Bowie canon" and that doesn't have its own page. My point is, even though these songs have entries on them in all these books, I find web reviews hardly mention these tracks, even in full album reviews. The reason I wanted to expand tracks like "Station to Station" is because that song is viewed as the bridge between Young Americans and Low and it's also considered one of his greatest. But all of the songs are side two of Low and the majority of "Heroes" are ambient instrumentals which to me can all be summed up in their respective album articles. I'm currently working on expanding Aladdin Sane and will eventually do the same for Low and "Heroes"; I aim to have a paragraph for each track in the vein of my vast expansion of Hunky Dory. But currently, the info present in these smaller song articles can easily be placed into their parent album articles. – zmbro (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If there are multiple books that cover every David Bowie song then perhaps every David Bowie song is notable. There are very few artists about which this could be said.  That still means that multiple reliable sources found these songs notable enough to cover, and there is no reason that coverage should not be reflected in Wikipedia. Rlendog (talk) 12:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not what is being said at all. All this info can easily be reflected in the "Heroes" album article, which is currently less than 30k bytes. I recently expanded Hunky Dory with paras for each track. "Eight Line Poem" is a track that doesn't have its own WP page, and deservedly so, as pretty much all the info about the song I could find in Pegg, Doggett, O'Leary, etc. (without repeating info), all fit into one paragraph. A song like that doesn't need its own article. Through the research I've done, most of the tracks off "Heroes" have the same fate – all of their info can be fit into one paragraph. Now, if you think differently, then go ahead and begin expanding all of these articles. I'm working on more important Bowie articles rn so I can't. But since you, in particular, think these songs are so important and qualify WP:NSONGS then be my guest. – zmbro (talk) 15:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep I think there is enough here for an article. If you can use one of the books to improve even better. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs )~ 20:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't think the nominator, with access to all those books, wouldn't have tried to do that first before nominating it? Richard3120 (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment: IMO, it's not necessary for every song in the album to have its own article. Since each of them has their sources, they can be discussed in the mentioned album. Revolver is an example. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 04:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect, the content does not pass WP:NSONGS criteria for an independent article. The information here could be easily contained on the parent album's page. Per WP:OTHERSTUFF, the fact that other pages for songs from the album exist is the EXACT REASON WHY THIS ONE SHOULD NOT. Topics do not inherit notability from other related topics. Additionally, articles about songs from this album should not overly/heavily rely purely on published sources. To be honest Joe_the_Lion, Sons of the Silent Age, V-2 Schneider, Sense of Doubt, Moss Garden, Neuköln and The Secret Life of Arabia should all be merged. → Lil- ℧niquԐ1 - ( Talk ) - 18:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)**I don't understand the comment that "articles about songs from this album should not overly/heavily rely purely on published sources." If we do not rely on published sources what do we rely on? Rlendog (talk) 12:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a notable song. There are other sources that could be used, and I've added a few. The Victoria and Albert Museum in London exhibited the cut-up lyrics of "Blackout" in 2013 as part of its "David Bowie is" exhibition. SarahSV (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  NASCARfan0548  ↗  00:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per the expansion work done post-nom.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 06:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Changed my vote, per WP:HEY. Unlike the similar AfDs, the article has been expanded. I believe it's good enough to meet WP:NSONG. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 00:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * so you like the Ch-ch-ch-Changes....? :D  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes indeed. Those changes got me satisfied enough to change my vote. 😏 ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 01:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:HEY. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect per WP:NSONGS.  Cool Marc  ✉   09:54, 23 May 2020 (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.