Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Led Zeppelin songs written or inspired by others


 * 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

List of Led Zeppelin songs written or inspired by others

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Content fork WP:CFORK. Article consists of copied and pasted text from existing song articles on Wikipedia. Topic is already covered within the song articles and with these lists:,. 40 out of 71 citations are YouTube links. A further two citations are from a self-published blog Turnmeondeadman. Both sites are unreliable sources WP:NOYT, WP:USERGENERATED. PaulineLibertarian (talk) 06:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - Terrible sourcing aside, wasn't the band pretty well-known for getting into trouble for not quite properly attributing their work to their influences? Many of the sources present are not really usuable, but I'm pretty sure the concept itself is pretty well documented. (A number resulted in lawsuits, for example.) For this band in particular, it seems like this could be a viable list (with the appropriate cleanup efforts.) Also, it looks like you forgot to notify the article creator, though I have now done that for you. Sergecross73   msg me  16:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: This is silly, "it's covered elsewhere" would eliminate every single list on Wikipedia. There is nothing at List of basil cultivars that does not come from the existing articles on various basil cultivars. There's nothing at List of Presidents of the United States that isn't in the corresponding articles, either. Obviously, the function of a list is to organize information in a specific format. Lists SHOULD NOT contain new material, per se. Anything in them surely SHOULD be in the various articles covering the things in the list. This is like Wikipedia 101. In this case, there is an obvious and unique function to a list of controversial Zeppelin songs, which produces a relatively organized, accurate summary of the various songs Zeppelin borrowed from or covered. And yes, of course it overlaps the exhaustive list of Zeppelin songs, but that list doesn't contain information on which songs were covered or "stolen". Oh, and self-published blogs are sufficient sources for non-controversial information. Unless you are challenging the factual basis of the information on the list (which I dare you to do), the sources are not even an issue, much less a cause for deletion — Kaz (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning towards keep, but your comment on sources is pretty off-base. This article definitely needs improvement in sourcing. These self-published blogs are not okay, nor are most youtube videos unless they are official accounts of reliable sources (like Loudwire) or official accounts of the band/record label. Otherwise, there are WP:COPYVIO and WP:USERG issues. Sergecross73   msg me  12:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You are misunderstanding the very article you refer to regarding the standard for sourcing. This confusion is pretty common, but bad for Wikipedia in general. Too many people start confusing the recommendations for controversial content and thinking it's an absolute rule for all content. This originates with the bad editors who try to censor real info they don't like, deleting instead of fixing and then using wikilawyering to justify it. In this case, note what the sources article actually says: "The guideline in this page discusses the reliability of various types of sources. The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations." It requires inline citation for any material challenged, or likely to be challenged. THIS is where self-published blogs are verboten. If the list were claiming Jimmy Page killed someone, which none of us believe, it'd need high-quality secondary sources to back that up. If it said Jimmy Page's hair was brown in 1974, it would require no source at all, and a citation that simply pointed to a blog photo of Page from 1974 would be fine. Nobody's seriously going to question it anyway. ALL of the "low quality" sources here are akin to the hair question. They are, for example, blog entries that quote the two songs to compare them. The lyrics of the two songs are a matter of fact. They are non-controversial. The sources don't need to be wikilawyered, nobody's going to realistically challenge them. — Kaz (talk) 14:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If they were some sort of obscure band, then maybe I could be swayed by some sort of WP:IAR argument, but the fact of the matter is, they are one of the biggest bands of the last 50 years. Better sources are out there, there's no reason to lower our standards to these low-level blogs. And also none of that addresses the WP:COPYVIO/WP:ELNO/WP:NOTDIRECTORY issues I mention in my "Keep" !vote below. Its not appropriate for us to link to the Youtube video of every single song mentioned in the list. We're writing an encyclopedia, not a Buzzfeed/Cracked.com type article. Sergecross73   msg me  15:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What I am saying is that this isn't an Ignore All Rules argument, because you are referring to a rule that does not exist in the very WP:USERG you cite, or anywhere else. Please refer to my quotation from the start of that article ("requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations.") . Nobody denies anything in the list, therefore hardcore references are not imperative. If the factuality of the list were even arguable, then what you are talking about would apply. Zeppelin being the biggest band in history doesn't change the fact that nobody denies or disputes anything in the list. —Kaz (talk) 18:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with improving the sources. I'm saying they're not in violation of any actual rules, and the idea that weak sources are ever a cause for removal of any non-controversial facts is an ugly artifact of wikilawyered censorship, not a serious or desirable part of Wikipedia in any way."'Reliable sources must be strong enough to support the claim. A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim.'"— Kaz (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I was not arguing that the content should necessarily be removed, I was arguing that better sources should be found to replace the weak ones. If its uncontentious statements, then surely a more reliable source covered it as well. My point is, with such a mainstream, well-documented subject, there's really no reason to settle for weak sourcing. The WP:COPYVIO/WP:NOYT stuff undeniably needs to go, and anything that is "so obvious no one would ever challenge it" probably doesn't need to be sourced at all. Sergecross73   msg me  20:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Understood. I have been addressing this in view of the absurd justification for nominating it in the first place, that somehow repeated info and weak sourcing of non-controversial, factually unchallenged material is grounds for deleting a list. By the way, the reason I linked to the audio of the songs is that this way the user had a source for seeing that the two versions did indeed sound alike. I don't know if I'm up for the effort of making a demo clip for all of them the way the Stairway to Heaven inspiration has been done. Just setting up this list as it is was a bit of an endeavor. The sourcing may not be great, but I was careful that the facts be airtight, as exhaustive as I could reasonably manage, and as NPOV as is possible on this subject — Kaz (talk) 22:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - As alluded to above, I see the value in this list, "For this band in particular". KConWiki (talk) 04:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Upon looking further, a majority of the sourcing problems stem from using Youtube links used as references to link to the versions of the songs being discussed. Next to each song discussed, there's a Youtube link to the LZ version, and the original version, of the song. That's a majority of the bad reference issues right there, which can basically just be removed because 1) It basically violates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Links_in_lists and 2) It's unnecessary to source at all, they don't really verify anything, as the respective song and album articles are enough verify the song's existence. Remove all the YT links to the songs, and replace the blog sources with a better source, and we're all set here. The good sources that are present, along with all the blue links present, are enough to meet the notability requirements and WP:LISTN though.  Sergecross73   msg me  13:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. In addition to the referencing issues already noted, I do not understand why songs written by and credited by non-LZ people as such are listed in this article - this is already covered in List of songs recorded by Led Zeppelin. That leaves just those songs where the song is based on an older song, so a title the article along the lines of List of Bob Dylan songs based on earlier tunes would be more appropriate, unless somebody is trying to make a case against LZ relating to copyright infringement. I also note that the article is written in such a way that does not appreciate the traditional/out of copyright scenario. If a song is out of copyright, it is usual to credit as 'traditional arranged by XXX,' but often this just gets abbreviated to 'XXX.' Not quite true, but not wrong, nevertheless. Taking this all into consideration it might be best practice for the creator to take a copy of the article as it stands to work on and let this article be deleted --Richhoncho (talk) 11:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should have bothered to read the article. The intro says "In effort to present a complete, balanced picture, it includes non-controversial ones the band correctly attributed to other writers from the outset". Because this is not a hatchet job going after Zeppelin, it lists...well, what the title (perhaps you didn't read that, either) suggests. This gives a balanced viewpoint, instead of being either pro or anti-Zeppelin. It isn't claiming they're thieves OR blameless, just listing the various songs that inspired their songs. And no, you are ALSO wrong about the expired copyright. First, "traditional" means nobody knows who wrote it. Second, the songs credited as "traditional" by Zeppelin are listed that way in the article. Did you even bother to read ANY of it, before chiming in? — Kaz (talk) 05:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should have read what I wrote, too! "Inspired by" and "written by" have two totally different meanings - you have tried to merge two into one article and that is misleading - irrespective of any text in the article. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - The way it's worded seems safe to the point of obscuring the notable topic. If it were simply about a subset of their music, it would likely be redundant to List of songs recorded by Led Zeppelin, but there are a whole lot of sources specifically about their use (some call it inspiration, others call it plagiarism) of other people's music. This article is probably better renamed and refocused as something like Accusations of musical plagiarism by Led Zeppelin and its lead/prose expanded, but I wouldn't make my keep !vote contingent of that move. There's a question, by the way, of whether the musical plagiarism article would be better served linking to this article (and how to do so effectively) rather than partially duplicate it. I think it's notable enough for a stand-alone article. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 12:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've posted a request for help on the talk page, seeking input on how to make the wording clearer while keeping it NPoV. I definitely want the list to show a balanced view of how Zeppelin "borrowed" songs, not solely list the ones they're accused of "stealing" outright, but yes, my current wording seems to go right over the heads of some people, who then don't understand how this is different than a list of all Led Zeppelin songs. I'd love it if you offered some input there. — Kaz (talk) 15:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * LZ started as a English blues band. How and where does anybody think they were "inspired?" I could go on about how the old blues musicians were paid a price for the song and recording and nobody cared too much about "copyright." --Richhoncho (talk) 13:17, 27 September 2015 (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.