Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cold Dead Hand


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 10:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Cold Dead Hand

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

According to WP:NSONG: "Articles about traditional songs should avoid original research and synthesis of published material that advances a position." IronKnuckle (talk) 18:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep nominator seems to be at issue with content, not notability of topic. Sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  19:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete The coverage of this is at best routine and tied completely to the actor's notability; there is no indication that this has or will have any impact in any policy debate about gun control or anything else. There is already a paragraph in the Carrey bio, and that is more than enough in my opinion. Notability is not inherited. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see how WP:NSONG can be interpreted to read this way; the statements you are making hold true for most singles. Impact on "policy debate" has never been criteria for inclusion, nor should the notability of the musician exclude the single simply by association. There is an immense amount of shallow coverage and a significant amount of significant coverage. Surely this piece in the Daily Mail isn't focused solely on Carrey and his whacky beliefs/humor.
 * Besides, you seem to be misreading WP:INHERITED "In addition, notability of a parent entity or topic (of a parent-child "tree") does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities. That is not to say that this is always the case (three of the notability guidelines, for books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances), or that the subordinate topic cannot be mentioned in the encyclopedia whatsoever. Often, a separate article is created for formatting and display purposes; however, this does not imply an "inherited notability" per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation, such as with books and albums." Nobody is arguing that this article should be kept only because the singer is notable, which is the point of the guideline you linked to. This is an argument against "There is no coverage, but he's famous, so we need an article." The song has significant coverage in articles that are about the song itself, which is WP:GNG. Some journalists wrote about the song because of the singer, but that does not violate our policies, and has nothing to do with WP:INHERITED. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  20:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I didn't even look at WP:NSONGS. I was looking at it from a general notability perspective, and WP:NOTINHERITED. The question here is why this is receiving coverage: Is it because of the video itself, or is it the association by Carrey? Obviously it's the latter. Thus, it merits a paragraph in his bio, not a standalone article (and obviously no prejudice to expanding to article if it actually turns out to be a big deal). I would have recommended a redirect in lieu of delete, but the title isn't a plausible search term and the article is too new. § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I get what you're saying, but that argument isn't supported by guidelines and doesn't pan-out. How can we prove that any song by any famous artist became notable solely on its own merits and not because of the artist? We can't, we can only show that it is notable. We can't prove the song wouldn't have sparked outrage if Carrey weren't involved, remember that his backing band was The Eels, and gun culture is a hot-button topic right now. I agree that notability is not inherited, but it is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which is what this song has received. No matter why it has received this coverage, no matter the nature of the coverage (apparently Fox News has spent a week lambasting Carrey and this song), it is still significant coverage. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  19:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for those links. I think it's obvious that this has gone beyond just the latest famous person's little side project, so I have no problem with reversing my !vote to Keep. § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge to the Carrey article. It's telling that all the sources are referring quite directly to Carrey when discussing the song. The song is really only notable because he's the one behind it, and we ought to merge any useful material into the main Carrey article. Ducknish (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment The material (such as it is) is already there. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: Topic is notable and can significantly be improved. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 05:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep We have numerous articles about popular songs. The widespread continuing coverage is sufficient to establish notability.  I agree it may not have received coverage had the artist not been famous, it does not detract from the notability.  Agree also with JohnnyMrNinja that OR and POV in how an article is written is not sufficient reason to delete, if those problems can be corrected.  TFD (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable topic which can be expanded upon utilizing secondary sources. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: Nom --IronKnuckle -- is now indef blocked.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Made-for-TV movies that no one has ever heard of get unique pages, so do songs much more obscure than this; it's not like this is some shocking new contradiction to the rules. Master Deusoma (talk) 05:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Given that the nom is indef blocked, and the other !votes, I would think this could be snow closed at any point.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:56, 2 April 2013 (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.