Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Am The Sea


 * 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 redirect to Quadrophenia. czar 20:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I Am The Sea

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article claims that this was a single released by The Who, but there are no references to back this up, and this reliable source suggests it was only ever a track on "Quadrophenia". Together with the lack of reliable sources actually about the track itself, this is not a notable song per WP:NSONGS. Black Kite (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not especially concerned whether this song-article is kept, deleted, or merged-and-redirected to Quadrophenia, but I am troubled that it appears to lead off with a false statement. I will ask the article-creator to clarify ... Can you please let us know where you obtained the information that the song "was released [presumably meaning as a single] without a B-side to accompany it", or else clarify what you meant by that sentence. Thanks. I also notice that I Am the Sea (note small "t") is already a redirect to Quadrophenia. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My father owns a ton of Who albums and as far as I can tell there is no B-side. I've also Googled it and nothing comes up, which leads me to believe that this song was not recorded with a B-side. Many other songs on the album Quadrophenia were without B-sides, including but not limited to "Drowned", "Cut My Hair", "The Punk and The Godfather", "Sea and Sand" and "Bell Boy", so it wouldn't be unreasonable to say that this song has no B-side, due to a lack of evidence and a consistency throughout the album. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, but the real question is, is there evidence that "I Am the Sea" or the other songs you've just listed were "released"&mdash;meaning as singles, separately from the album&mdash;at all? A given album might have 15 songs on it, with only 3 or 4 being released as singles. For example, our Quadrophenia article lists singles for 3 songs but not the others.) By saying that "I Am the Sea" was released "without a B-side," we are saying that the song was released as an "A-side", that is, as a single, as opposed to just being included on the album. (Incidentally, it is very unlikely that a song like this would be released as an "A-side only," for reasons that were easier to explain before the whole world went digital.) I hope this clarifies what I'm asking. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've already been informed that it was simply a track and not a single, so I'll remoe that little bit of information. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've got most of The Who's original output on vinyl and have had for several decades, and read several biographies back to front until the paper is worn from thumb marks (including Dave Marsh's "Before I get Old", Tony Fletcher's "Dear Boy, The Life of Keith Moon", Andrew Neill and Matt Kent's "Anyway Anyhow Anywhere" and John Atkins' "The Who on Record") and taken quite a few Who related articles to GA (not least the main one on the band itself). While obviously WP:OWN still applies, I am pretty sure that if your unsourced claim was true, I'd have read about it somewhere. Perhaps it was released on promotional teasers to radio stations (where there is nothing unusual about having a one-sided bit of vinyl), but without any sort of reliable source, we can't put that information in the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I doubt that this was ever a single, but I consider that irrelevant. It's the opening track of Quadrophenia, a major work of UK rock history, not just important within The Who's own work. This track stands out from almost everything else on the album, and even the rest of the Who's work. Just from its production alone, it's a significant step in Townshend's working style (no windmills here!). Andy Dingley (talk) 14:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Quadrophenia. Fails WP:NSONGS. The song serves as an introduction to the rest of the album, and is best discussed in the context of the album as a whole. It does not have notability as an individual song.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Quadrophenia per WP:NSONGS, and for homework consider having a similar debate about "Speak to Me". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep the song has clearly entered a lexicography beyond merely that of 'popular' music. And specifically for our purposes, it passes WP:NSONG, as it has been the subject ('non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the song/single, its musician/band or of its publication, price listings and other non-substantive detail treatment') of multiple ('plenty' suffices here) non-trivial (philosphical?) sources. And since these sources pass WP:DEPTH and provide significicant, third party coverage, WP:GNG is passed also. Worth noting in passing that to redirect to Quadrophenia would endow this song with WP:UNDUEWEIGHT in that article. O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  10:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That "Who and Philosophy" source looks like one man's rambling opinion, without any evidence it's actually factually correct. Mark Wilkerson's book is a self-published source that contradicts more official biographies and lumps in far too much guesswork to be considered a reliable source. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well; if one is prepared to make cracks about 'homework' one should probably be prepared to do it. What you say on the Wilkerson book sounds very much like an opinion, and there's not much indication that Omnibus Press is a self-publishing house. It is a specialist publishing house, however. Perhaps WP:RSN is the place to be?
 * Re: philosophy. As for 'one mans's rambling opinion' (an irony to be remarked upon no further!), even the 'sources' section- that you added- show there to be two authors involved: Gennaro, Rocco J, and Harison, Casey. Rocco is professor of Philosophy, and Harison a Faculty Member at the University of Southern Indiana. Other contributors are Dr G. Littmann, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, and prof. Scot Calef, Ohio Wesleyan University. And with many more besides! it being an academic treatment. Cheers,  O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  13:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The article has undergone significant changes, including the addition of numerous seemingly reliable sources, since the nomination and the two "redirect" votes. As such, more comments are needed. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * sock strike Keep  This song is opening track of an album which is considered to be one of the most important records of rock history. Based on its popularity it deserve it own article. The article also has enough coverage from reliable sources ChargerHellcat (talk) 11:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Quadrophenia as specified above. Being the opening track is irrelevant if there are no sources that discuss why the track itself is important, and the sources provided are unimpressive.  The book by Gennaro et al spends about a paragraph on this track, which is pretty much routine in a book that dives deep into the band.  The book by Atkins is similar, briefly describing the song but certainly not in a way that makes it notable compared to the rest of the Who canon.  Definitely a plausible search term and I wouldn't object to a brief analysis of the song in the article about the album, but not a notable stand-alone topic. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC).
 * Redirect I don't have anywhere near Ritchie's knowledge of The Who, but I've known their music for a while, and I know of no reason why the song needs a standalone article: and nothing in the article justifies this, either. Vanamonde (talk) 09:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Recommending Close from an outside administrator. I have nothing to refute what the people who voted 'redirect' have to say. I'd prefer it be kept as a standalone article but redirecting is in the best interest of the community. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is already a redirect at the correct capitalisation, I am the Sea. If there is a consensus the article should remain, then it should be at the correct capitalisation in any event. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Presumably, you meant to Comment rather than delete? After all, an incorrect page title is not a qualification for deletion, and as you say, it can be moved. In fact, being WP:BOLD, I will do so. Thanks for the pointer! O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  20:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * . No I meant delete. There is no advantage of having millions of redirects as a result of miscapitalization. If the article is deleted, then the incorrect capitalization will have to be repointed. If the article is kept then there is no reason to keep the incorrect capitalization (subject to correct history merge). Your action was premature and unnecessary. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Please, do not be disingenuous: we are not discussing a redirect's deletetion, but an article's. O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  12:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * . Because of your move this discussion should now be at Redirects for discussion, because it is no longer an article. I think you need to reconsider who is being 'disingenuous.' --Richhoncho (talk) 12:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * PS . You also moved it to the wrong capitalization. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I noticed that as well, but I didn't move the page as it would have left us with two pages with the same content. I'm not able to delete pages and I'm not good at moving either. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * On Spotify this is how it is capitalized (see below the album art). I'm pretty sure it was correct from the beginning. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * . Spotify has its house style, as does Wikipedia, please check Manual of Style/Capital letters. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2017 (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.