Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Led Zeppelin songs written or inspired by others (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus. Further discussion about the article can continue on its talk page, if desired. North America1000 10:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

List of Led Zeppelin songs written or inspired by others
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:SALAT. How exactly is "written or inspired by others" defined? Most songs are inspired by something, so there's no clear criteria as to what should be included here. This is just a synthesis of random ideas, and it says nothing that isn't already on the articles for the existing songs. I have never seen "written or inspired by others" lists for any other musician, and I don't get why this one should be here. While the 2015 AFD had a consensus to "keep", none of the votes seemed to be based in policy, instead arguing things like WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:ILIKEIT, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Lists. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Led Zeppelin is an unusual band, insofar as they've had a great many controversies, where they covered another song without crediting it. The title here attempts to remain neutral regarding which were actually stolen, synthesized out of others without credit in an arguably legitimate way, were "influenced" by accident, was convergent evolution with chord progressions, or whatever. If you think it'd be better to say "Led Zeppelin songs with controversial origins and influences", make that case. But it's risible to claim that this is not a noteworthy list. Speaking of which, "it says nothing that isn't already in the articles" is true of every single list on Wikipedia. Don't be part of the unhealthy obsession with removing information and articles on Wikipedia, it violates everything we're supposed to stand for. — Kaz (talk) 03:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What qualifies as "influenced" though? Do any of the sources support the fact that LZ constantly took "influence" from others? Or that the concept of "LZ copied from others" is a topic in and of itself? Literally every musician ever is influenced by another in some way. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Then propose changing the words, instead of the bad editorial behavior of wanting to delete all of the useful, organized information because you're confused by the wording. —Kaz (talk) 05:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, because "combin[ing] material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source" is "bad editorial behavior" where I was just "confused by the wording". How silly and amateurish of me, someone who's been on this site since 2005. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There is nothing synthesized anew in this article, Zeppelin's history of problematic song provenance is a well-documented, persistent issue. Meanwhile, deletionism is one of the worst trends and editor behaviors on Wikipedia. That you are a newbie in comparison to myself is no excuse for that behavior. I think even a mere 17 years is long enough for you to know better. —Kaz (talk) 14:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, "it's useful" and "it looks good" are not reasons to keep. I could write a useful and good-looking article on my cat; that doesn't make her notable. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:23, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, you are attempting to argue against all lists. Your cat isn't a famous progressive rock band that has a history of being accused (right or wrong) of attribution problems far beyond what just about any major act has.—Kaz (talk) 14:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That still doesn't give you the right to condescend to me like that. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works. When you do something wrong, it's your own fault when someone points it out to you. I have no respect for someone making a deletionist argument that would apply to an entire genre of articles. Especially someone who, while not as experienced as myself, has been around long enough that they should know better. —Kaz (talk) 22:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a notable topic > https://www.rollingstone.com/feature/led-zeppelins-10-boldest-rip-offs-223419/ . I respect the keep arguments made in the first AfD and above. I respect the neutrality motivations for the title, but also think it could be improved, but that's not a reason to delete. CT55555 (talk) 05:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Improved by what? All musicians steal ideas. You could make an article like this for literally every musician who ever existed. That doesn't make it a notable topic just because you synthesized a few accusations of plagiarism together. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The title could be improved by...editing.
 * I don't know if it's true that all musicians steal ideas, even if it was, it would be a sliding scale with Led Zepplin at one extreme end of it. But I don't think that's important. What is important is if the plagiarism is sufficiently notable as per Wikipedia's criteria. I think it's clear that the extent of plagiarism by most bands is not notable, and inversely that for Led Zepplin it is.
 * What makes the topic notable is the numerous, independent, reliable sources illustrating that to be the case. I maybe use the word "synthesise" differently from you, so you lost me a bit there, they way I see it is that what I've done is show you a list of articles that illustrate that the topic is notable, which I think is the normal way to illustrate notability in AfD discussions. CT55555 (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There's no argument that they stole material. But is the subject of them stealing content a notable subject on its own? WP:SYNTH warns against "combin[ing] material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source", and that seems to be exactly what's being done here. The sources are verifying that material was stolen, but not that the underlying subject "Led Zeppelin stole material" is in and of itself a noteworthy topic. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You ask is the subject of them stealing content a notable subject on its own". As I see it: clearly yes, as per the multiple links I've shared, which I think is why you're seeing the WP:SNOWBALL of keeps. It is increasingly difficult reconcile your determination to argue keep with the clear, and well-articulated, support from the community to keep. CT55555 (talk) 13:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: "Written or inspired by others" is a neutral way to phrase what is said in the introduction of the article: "songs that consisted, in whole or part, of pre-existing songs, melodies, or lyrics"; an attempt could definitely be made to reword the title. As for its notability, LZ has been taken to court a handful of times over copying without attribution - some cases in favour of LZ, others not. The case over an arguably iconic song, Stairway to Heaven, almost made it | all the way to the Supreme Court, but was shut down there.  ~XyNq tc 05:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Many have plagiarized others but a seperate page to record such instances is unwarranted. Agletarang (talk) 09:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you saying the topic is not notable?
 * https://theconversation.com/plagiarists-or-innovators-the-led-zeppelin-paradox-endures-102368
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/09/arts/music/led-zeppelin-lawsuit-stairway-to-heaven.html
 * https://rollingstoneindia.com/plagiarism-lawsuit-ed-sheeran-depends-one-led-zeppelin/
 * https://www.rollingstone.com/feature/led-zeppelins-10-boldest-rip-offs-223419/ CT55555 (talk) 11:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Valid information, won't all fit in their main article, so a spin off article is justified.  D r e a m Focus  12:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Since when did WP:ITSUSEFUL become a proper argument? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Not the argument I made. This is information about the band that should be somewhere, and won't fit in their own article.   D r e a m Focus  16:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is a notable topic meeting GNG as many sources (including books about the band) discuss that a number of Led Zeppelin songs were based on others, not to mention a number of specific controversies and lawsuits on the topic. There may well be a better name for this list - "written by" could be cover songs, which many bands and singers have, and as the nominator states, many songs are inspired by others but not to the extent of some of Led Zep's controversies. I'll throw out the suggestion "List of Led Zeppelin songs based on songs written by others."  But a suboptimal title is not a reason to delete. Rlendog (talk) 12:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Or a perhaps more neutral title suggestion could be "List of Led Zeppelin songs alleged to be based on songs written by others." Rlendog (talk) 14:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * They plagiarized songs, sure. But is the topic of "Led Zeppelin repeatedly plagiarized songs" covered by this sources? Smells like WP:SYNTH to me. It might as well be "Led Zeppelin wrote a lot of songs that have the word the in them". Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It is. Just look at the online sources that CT55555 provided.  Some are very explicit about their topic being "Led Zeppelin repeatedly plagiarized songs".  And off line sources also discuss the topic - far more than most other bands (really far more than any band I am aware of).  If this smells like WP:SYNTH to you then you may want to check your sense of smell. Rlendog (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep - This is a notable topic. I'm 50+, and I've been floored over the years to learn how many songs Led Zeppelin claimed as their own, but turned out they weren't. I've never heard of a band going through so many copyright issues for "their" work. It's really bold to claim a song as your own when you know you stole it. Dazed and Confused case in point. Cirrus Editor (talk) 14:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Is this not a synthesis of ideas though? The sources prove that songs were plagiarized, but every musician has done that. No sources proves that the specific topic of "Led Zeppelin has plagiarized songs" is notable. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe you missed my comment above: https://theconversation.com/plagiarists-or-innovators-the-led-zeppelin-paradox-endures-102368 CT55555 (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's still a synthesis because it's just a grab bag of every plagiarism they've been involved in. Like I said, this is no better than listing every song they had that used the word "the". Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, you seem not to know how lists work. Or Wikipedia in its original and best mode. EVERY list could be argued a synthesis, insofar as it's gathering information together from various articles into a central clearing house of that kind of detail. I made List of basil cultivars back in 2006, and indeed it was what you are arguing is a synthesis...and it was a Featured List for all of Wikipedia a while later. In reality, gathering non-controversial, verifiable material from other places in Wikipedia into one spot is not synthesis in the context you're trying to trot out here. —Kaz (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If multiple articles covered the issue of every song that used the word "the" then that might be notable too. But unlike the issue of Led Zeppelin's plagiarism and "borrowing", there are no articles discussing how Led Zep used the word "the" in their song titles. Rlendog (talk) 13:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Smerge to the main band article. The notability arguments seem to focus on the various accusations of plagiarism.  Indeed, that much seems to be reasonably noteworthy, but I think it would do well to beef up the main article, which contains very little coverage of that.  However, trying to make a list out of anything that's been written by others (written how? lyrics? music?), does cross well into WP:SYNTH territory, as already pointed out.  Alternatively, I think this list could be salvaged with some saner inclusion requirements, maybe something like "list of songs which were originally published without credit but later included credit".  That's a horrible title, but you get the idea.  This would knock of stuff that was properly credited from the get-go, as well as unproven allegations, or vague inspiration, like "Stairway to Heaven".  But all in all, I think this would do better as prose in the main article.  35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete While it could be true that Led Zeppelin has engaged in plagiarism and also experienced lawsuits over that, I still think that there is no reason to believe that this subject meets WP:GNG. It is just another part of the broader biography of the 2nd most successful musical band in the history.  There are some unsourced statements and we need to find a better article where important content from this article can be merged. I think List of songs recorded by Led Zeppelin has a lot of summary where it can be merged but deletion is important largely due to WP:SYNTH concerns. GenuineArt (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete With so many fancrufts and trivial lists out there, I really don't believe we can handle another series of "written or inspired" by series which can be disparaging for the subject as the quality of sources is often poor. Jhy.rjwk (talk) 04:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - My library hold on 2021's Led Zeppelin: The Biography has yet to come in, but The New Yorker review of the book devotes more than two columns to the issue, noting both how the well-covered claims have plagued the band for decades, and how perhaps too much has been made of the "theft". Caro7200 (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Not an encyclopedic article. Many popular artists have engaged in some degree of plagiarism, but we should avoid covering such trivial info unless it is major, and that is not the case here. This particular band is not all that unique in this regard. desmay (talk) 21:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. If the article was renamed and trimmed to 'Plagiarism Court Cases involving Led Zep' it would be notable, because the subject is opened wider it doesn't cease to be notable. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well-referenced, notable band, notable topic. Why was this listed? Bookworm857158367 (talk) 22:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Snowball. I think there may be a decent case for renaming the article, as a few others have brought up, but I see very little good reason to just delete it altogether. Let's not use a cannon to kill a mosquito here. Sleddog116 (talk) 16:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per all keeps. Snow close. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 03:14, 1 June 2022 (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.