Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Don't Surf (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   Delete. For details, please see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Charlie Don't Surf (song).  Jerry  talk ¤ count/logs 03:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Charlie Don't Surf (song)
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The Clash has many notable and important songs, but this is not one of them. While the guidelines for songs seem somewhat uncertain, this song does not meet some of the basics. It was not a single, it is not one of their more popular songs (regardless of he POV insistence it is one of their "best", based solely on one review by a minor critic), it was never on a Greatest Hits album (it wasn't even included on the box set Clash on Broadway, 3 discs of almost all of their significant songs), it wasn't even on Rolling Stone's top 50 greatest Clash songs (checking for verification on that). There's no video for it, and there's little to be said about it, other than that it's been performed live (most songs have been) and it's on some bootlegs, which is hardly remarkable. The only significant fact about it is that it takes its name from a line in Apocalypse Now, which is hardly worth an article. Most Clash songs do not have articles, and I fail to see why this should be an exception. I've been a Clash fan for 20 years, and have not known this song as anything other than filler for their triple album. R. fiend (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC) In short, it isn't notable enough. And Corvus, who is it well known to? Die-hard Clash fans? I'm sorry, but this article is simply not important enough for Wikipedia. Shapiros10 (talk) 01:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Song does not meet WP:MUSIC in any way, and given the song's obscurity, a redirect/merge wouldn't serve much purpose. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I will admit I was skeptical at first, but the nominator convinced me. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  21:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per R. fiend. If it's not even on the Rolling Stone Top 50, get it off of Wikipedia. Shapiros10 (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Filler? It's one of their best songs. Nevertheless it is not significant enough for an article. --John (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * UNDELETE!!! The article was created today (so this is a sort of speedy deletion without using the appropriate criteria for a speedy deletion)! Before listing an article for deletion, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate. For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately (he didn't!!!). The only problem was that I reverted one of his edit because he considered a POV the Sandinista! review made by Stephen Thomas Erlewine: “Amid all the dub experiments, backward tracks, unfinished songs, and instrumentals, there are a number of classic Clash songs that rank among the band's best, including "Police on My Back," "The Call Up," "Somebody Got Murdered," "Charlie Don't Surf," "Hitsville U.K.," and "Lightning Strikes (Not Once but Twice)," yet it's difficult for anyone but the most dedicated listeners to find them.” Important note: Failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion. Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted. 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. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; permanent stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album (AND NOT DELETED!!!). Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines: Ask the article's creator for advice on where to look for sources (he didn't). Put the notability tag on the article to alert other editors (he didn't). To place a dated tag, put a notability tag (he didn't). If the article is about a specialized field, use the PROJECT-NAME tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online (he didn't). THE ARTICLE WAS CREATED TODAY!!! In the WikiProject Songs there are currently no specific guidelines for the notability of songs. The song is one of the greatest political songs in the whole music history. Just a line from that song that should be useful one of these days (did you know that Pentagon plans to shoot down disabled spy satellite???): "Satellites will make space burn"! —P Joe F. (talk • contribs) 23:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep your pants on. This isn't speedy deletion (it's not even a prod), it's a regular AFD. Regardless of the state of the article, the song is not going to get any more notable in the next few days, so there is little point in waiting. Better it's deleted before you waste a lot of time adding every radio station that's ever played the song or whatnot. As for other options, I tried to redirect, and got reverted, I tried to at least remove POV, and was reverted. A redirect is useless here anyway, as no one is going to search for Charlie Don't Surf (song), they'll search for Charlie Don't Surf, and get a Veronica Mrs episode (if that bothers you, take it up over there). Just because the guidelines on songs are not concrete, doesn't mean anything goes. Why does this song warrant an article more than so many others? Or are we going to have articles on every song ever published (I sure hope not). "One of the greatest political songs in the whole music history"? Come on! It's not even one of the greatest songs on side 5 of Sandinista (yes, that's merely my opinion; the other is merely yours). As for the comments below, we have two links: a blog, and one that merely uses a line from the song to illustrate a point bout politics, and an article that merely mentions that the song exists. We knew that already. Neither establish it being particularly well known, or influential (to anyone except random blogger Jonathan Diamond). The best that can be said about the song's notability is that it was covered by an unknown band on an out of print album almost no one's heard of (I only know it exits because I bought a copy 15 years ago). -R. fiend (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, well-known, influential song - .  Corvus cornix  talk  23:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm not a die-hard Clash fan, not even really much of a punk fan, and I know it.  Corvus cornix  talk  02:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Despite it being one of my favorite Clash songs, it isn't even a notable song on The triple album from where it appears. Never released as a single, nor a notable album track (unfortunately) Doc Strange (talk) 07:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, I tagged the article with the Underconstruction template before R. fiend tagged it with the AfDM. See the revision history of Charlie Don't Surf (song)! I added some info and sources to the article. The article has one day of life and just a couple of hours of work! —P Joe F. (talk • contribs) 14:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You've already "voted" once, for one, and what's been added to the article is trivial information which merely emphasizes the point that there is nothing significant to be said about the song. Furthermore, the article violates NPOV by stating some journalists' opinions as fact, and including words like "best", "beautiful", and "great", and again, citing blogs. List of concerts where the song has been performed? Since when do Wikipedia articles include such irrelevant (and uncited) information? It's pretty clear that what you've done is google the song and band, and include the results in the article. What does a random T-shirt with phrase on it have to do with anything? It seems to reference the line from Apocalypse Now as much or more than the song (check the label). This information belongs on a fan site. Maybe Wikia deals with this sort of thing? I don't know. -R. fiend (talk) 15:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Oops! Sorry for that but I'm new to this procedure.  IMO, all the human knowledge must be saved and organized on Wikipedia, and if a reader want to search for that song, he must be able to find something about it and not the episode 4x2c of season Y of a television crap. What's this, an unreferenced advertising service???  The first statement in the Wikipedia main page is: Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. 2,239,761 articles in English. Right now, there are 742,894 stubs articles, 294,961 unassessed articles, 966,339 unassessed importance articles and 265,850 low importance articles on Wikipedia!  A 26 years old well–known influential song is a poetry (especially when it was written by Joe Strummer). A song without its own article could be not categorized; if an user wants to know more about a song, to find those information on the relative album/artist article is not a good choice; if someone wants to add some information about a song, its own article is the right place to do that; there are a lot of stubs on Wikipedia and the majority of songs do not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines!  Anyway, if (unfortunately) the article must be deleted, it is better to use the R from song instead of deleting the article.  Did you know that "Charlie Don't Surf" was performed live many many times and every time in a different way???  It is an influential song and (IMO) deserves to be on Wikipedia!  Please, contribute and add additional information to that article.  "Charlie don't surf and we think he should/Charlie don't surf and you know that it ain't no good"! —P Joe F. (talk • contribs) 13:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This article is turning more and more into a fansite entry. I think the information would be ideal here, but it really isn't for Wikipedia. -R. fiend (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, Pjoef, most of your argument is mostly accusations that other stuff exists. Also the fact that it is A Rock & Roll Hall of Fame inducted, legendary rock band that wrote and performed the song (and not say, Ted's Garage Band), but one of the guidelines of WP:MUSIC is that usually the only songs that get articles are either singles or notable album tracks. For instance "Train in Vain", The Clash's breakthrough single in America, is notable according to WP:MUSIC because not only was it issued as a single, but also hit the Billboard Hot 100 (despite the fact that the song was never listed on the back of London Calling), non-notable album tracks usually redirect to the album itself (a notable album track would be a popular song never issued as a single, like "Stairway to Heaven" - an extreme example, but an example nonetheless.) By bringing it to AfD we're not contesting the quality of the song or the band, as at least two Clash fans (including myself) have voted to delete. The fact is is that the song fails WP:MUSIC. Doc Strange (talk) 14:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: "Stairway to Heaven"??? Probably, you are referring to Zeppelin's "Baby Come on Home", "Going to California", "Houses of the Holy (song)", "I Can't Quit You Baby" or "Achilles Last Stand". Check them out! Doc Strange, there are 15254 stubs, 9094 unassessed and 25876 with no importance articles on songs. "Charlie" is the main character of Sandinista! ' s side five (IMO, the greatest album of all time and I listen all the music on this earth from Josquin des Prez to The Mars Volta).  The song is also an anti-war song and its lyrics are pure poetry.  Peace! —P Joe F. (talk • contribs) 15:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, all of those Zeppelin songs are examples of notable album tracks. Your proclamation that "Charlie" is the main charecter of side five is debatable. most of what you say is opinion. I mentioned "Stairway" as an example of a notable album track (a popular song never issued as a single). Doc Strange (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Hi Doc Strange, it is NOT DEBATABLE bacause I've the source for that (it's in one of their bibliographies)! " Yes, all of those Zeppelin songs are examples of notable album tracks " is debatable and most of what I read in this discussion are opinions!  "Baby Come on Home" was recorded in 1969, rejected,  released in 1993 and never performed live! "Going to California", from Led Zeppelin IV is a notable track if you exclude all other 7 tracks!  My opinion is precedeed by an IMO and (IMO), all the human knowledge must be saved and organized on Wikipedia!!!  I can find thousands of song articles on Wikipedia that are not compliant with WP:MUSIC.  Just another verse from that amazing song "Everybody wants to rule the world/Must be something we get from birth"!  And, BE BOLD!!!  —P Joe F. (talk • contribs) 21:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment This article would be better off on the Clash wikia. Just saying. Shapiros10 (talk) 13:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I did a major edit, removed the long list of concerts and more. I worked on it for few days and I think/hope it should be keeped. IMO, the song meets WP:MUSIC because it is an anti-war, anti-racism song that involves so important themes like the Vietnam War, veterans, the Strategic Defense Initiative and many more. This song (IMO) is too important to leave Wikipedia for Mickey Mouse. I haven't created the article. I just tried to save it from delection and I worked on it just few days. I know that (currently) it does not meet the Wikipedia criteria, that it is a stub but (IMO) it should become a well-written, comprehensive articles. I ask the leniency of the court. —P Joe F. (talk • contribs) 11:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - the article flatters to deceive by the amount of referencing and content, but when I started to edit the article to tidy it up I realized that there isn't actually a lot there. Some of the "references" are duplicate web pages, and some of the sources do not support what the article is saying. The more I studied the article and the sources the more I realized that the song is not worthy of an article. The article as it stands is full of bluster which distorts the reality of the song's standing. The aim of an encyclopedia is to reflect the truth - the summation of the human experience - it is not about creating a distorted and inaccurate picture which favours the enthusiasm of one individual. Terminate with extreme prejudice.  SilkTork  *What's YOUR point? 12:16, 26 February 2008 (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.