Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs containing covert references to real musicians


 * 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The result was Nomination withdrawn. People have provided convincing arguments to keep this article. Andrew Levine 22:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

List of songs containing covert references to real musicians
So how exactly do we decide what a "covert reference" to another performer is? Some on the list are pretty clear-cut ("I'll clone myself like that blonde chick who sings "Bette Davis Eyes'"), while some are very dubious ("it stoned me just like jelly roll" is Jelly Roll Morton?) and most are just guesswork and speculation ("American Pie", anyone?) Andrew Levine 07:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as unsourced, and thus appearing to be original research. (change to keep for now, see below.)Charlie 07:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per verifiability issues & original research --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 08:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Also indiscriminate and arbitary. MER-C 08:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete original research as they surely cease being covert references once the song writer or performer confirms the covert reference does exist. -- Kind Regards -  Heligoland  |   Talk  |   Contribs  13:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - confusing article name Tonytypoon 13:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - utterly unverifiable Tarinth 14:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete interesting, and I agree with most of the entries, but unverified and likely original research unless citations can be provided. Not to mention that this has a pretty arbitrary scope.-- danntm T C 22:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Danny Lilithborne 22:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: It looks like this will be a very sad week for me. I always said that if Wikipedia became so tight-assed as to delete this article, then it was time for me to leave. Looks like that day has arrived. Sad. It's been a great three years. - Jmabel | Talk 07:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So I suppose I might as well vote: Keep. - Jmabel | Talk 07:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge. Rather than deletion, I'd suggest that this article and List of songs containing overt references to real musicians be merged into a single article with a less-strange name, perhaps List of songs containing references to musicians (with the lede text noting that only real musicians other than the artist of the song are considered in the list's scope).  Songs which overtly name the person or group in question shouldn't be a problem, anything currently on the "covert" list will need a citation from a source (the actual artist, someone involved with production, or a biography, most likely) indicating that the "covert reference" is not actually overt OR.  Serpent&#39;s Choice 08:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP: This is a very interesting piece that surely has a place on Wikipedia.  This list illustrates the greatness of a collaborative project: it has been a part of this encyclopedia for three years and has been continually edited by dozens of editors who have put in a great deal of work.  Until tonight I have not been one of them because I wasn't aware of it, so I am not speaking on my own behalf, but on behalf of other hard-working contributors.  Put one of your stickers on top, if you must, suggesting that references be added, and let the editors of the page consider if and how they wish to do so - in most cases it's a matter of reading the lyrics.  But it should not be summarily trashed just because the policy du jour is remove, remove, remove, and a very small group of editors - far fewer than those who have diligently worked on this page for three years - have come to this page to vote it out as if this were an episode of "Survivor".   Have some respect for the hard work of others and don't be so rigid.  Does anyone remember "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia's quality, ignore them"?  (WP:IAR for those who like acronyms.)  User:Serpent's Choice's suggestion is also worth considering.  Slow down, and think, don't just delete. Tvoz | talk 08:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: although trivia, this list can be useful, and for that reason augments Wikipedia's aim of forming as comprehensive and in-depth encyclopedia as possible. Additionally, the majority of songs listed provide references for their listing through excerpts of lyrics. In this way, I fail to see how this is original research. This article has been around for a real time. Please enlighten me: how exactly will deleting it further Wikipedia's aims? [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 09:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The problem with saying that the songs themselves provide references, is that is only true when the exact name of a person is used in the song. But, and especially because the article is covert references, anything beyond that would be an inference, or a hypothesis if you will. It might be a hypothesis that any informed music-lover might make, but unless it has been made, and by a credible, referenced source, it must be considered original research. It is tough to prove a negative, but if this is indeed not original research, I'm sure someone will come up with sources, and I'll change my opinion. Charlie 10:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Respond. I think that properly sourcing this list will require a couple of weeks.  (This is why I have proposed that verifiability-related AfD's be given 14 days, rather than five).  Would you be open to "Keep and renominate in 30 days if not substantially sourced by then?" Robert A.West (Talk) 07:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Ronline. Dahn 09:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep This AfD is an example of what's wrong with both Wikipedia in general and specifically the AfD process. Please use some common sense before nominating a good article for deletion. I cannot imagine a more bad faith nomination than this one -- weirdoactor tundefinedc 11:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep. Nomination makes no sense to me. --Zerotalk 11:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm sensing an overall failure of WP:AGF with the Keep voters. Can you show us a reason why this isn't a randomly thrown-together assortment of trivia? Danny Lilithborne 12:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Seeing as your part of this debate was "per above"; how can you in good conscience ask for any elaboration on the part of 'keep' voters? -- weirdoactor tundefinedc 13:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment So because I agree with what people before me have said, that makes me mindless? More failure.  I simply agreed with the previous voters and had nothing more to add. Danny Lilithborne 20:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I did not call you "mindless"; I simply asked you to live up to the same standard you ask for from others. From here: It is important to keep in mind that every listing of an article for deletion is not a vote, but rather a discussion. That means that if several people already have showed support for the nominator, adding nothing but a statement in support of the nominator will not contribute significantly to the conclusion that is made by the administrator closing the discussing. Showing support for the nomination certainly can be a good thing, but it is good to try to explain why this support is justified. Even better is to try to formulate the arguments for deletion in your own words, even if those arguments are very similar to those presented by the nominator. If that is too much work or too difficult, it might be better to refrain from making a statement at all. -- weirdoactor tundefinedc 20:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per Jmabel. Modernist 14:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment for what it's worth - Jmabel referenced my edit She Belongs to Me when I supplied the source, the references are in place and future edits can be sourced. Modernist 15:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Ronline. Palmiro | Talk 14:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 *  Keep Merge (merge with List of songs containing overt references to real musicians per suggestion of Serpent's Choice above) but trim off line items that do not include the lyric that contains the reference; inclusion of the lyric constitutes de facto citation. There are cases where artists have said in interviews that they meant a particular part of their song as a reference to another person, event, or musician - a tribute - and in a quick scan I don't see any references to such interviews (wait, there is one reference included); inclusion of such would strengthen the list. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 14:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC) (changed from Keep to Merge, but my suggestion as to trimming and citing stands: --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 23:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC))
 * Delete per nom. Entirely unencyclopedic, and inherently subjective - where's the line between "overt" and "covert" to be drawn?  Reading the list, most of the entries seem to be "songs that contain lines from other, more famous, songs"; by this argument, every song that contains the words "I love you" is a "covert reference" to The Beatles.  A trivial article that has no place here. Tevildo 15:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see no real reason for deleting.--MariusM 19:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, clean up and reference. I am certain that a goodly number of the entries are verifiable (and some are discussed at length in the individual articles, which IMO is good enough for a list like this).  I see no reason not to take some time and source them.  I'll help.  Personally, I think this would make a better category than a list, but that effort is easier if the list exists.  It can be renominated if/when the category is created.  As to encyclopedic nature, songs with alleged cryptic references to real persons are an ancient and interesting phenomenon.  Consider Sing a song of sixpence and Little Jack Horner.  Tag and cleanup, rather than delete. Robert A.West (Talk) 19:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, harmless. -- Samuel Wantman 20:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and viciously source. Yes, it has problems, no it's not a bad list. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment "Keep" voters; I hold you to the same standard to which I hold Danny Lilithborne above. If you are just voting, or regurgitating the exact thoughts of others, you aren't helping to keep this article. Thank you. -- weirdoactor tundefinedc 20:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - cruft, cruft, cruft. Unmaintainable cruft to boot. Moreschi Deletion! 22:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - how on earth do you maintain that this is cruft, any more than any other general music-related article? Palmiro | Talk 01:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge. I like Serpent's Choices suggestion. If it is kept in any form, it needs to be sourced.--Cúchullain t/ c 22:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep first, because if we lose this, we lose Jmabel, and second, because, although this list does need vigilant maintenance, verification, and pruning, the basic concept is a wholesome one, a fun one, and surely a harmless one. Biruitorul 23:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't mean this as a personal assault, but you opened a window I felt needed crawling through &mdash; what is being sought is an encyclopedic reason, not a wholesome or fun reason ... there is an encyclopedic reason afterall and that is establishment of notability. One artist referencing another artist in a work is a contributing factor to the notability of the artist being referenced and therefore contributes to the overall strength of the encyclopedia as a whole. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 23:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: point well taken. Indeed, the list is encyclopedic because the content is notable - or so I think. Biruitorul 23:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You've already basically lost me, at least as a significantly active participant, so that shouldn't be a factor. - Jmabel | Talk 02:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe not, but I just hope you reconsider, since your absence will be painful, and the project will suffer greatly without you. And it seems this article will survive. Biruitorul 02:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep — J3ff 23:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Sorry for causing loss of people's work. But this seems rather OR-ish to me.  The word "covert" is a red flag.  Sometimes with overt references, one can rely on the primary source.  But covert, means that a straightforward reading of the lyrics doesn't prove its true, and it might even by denied, with an alternate explanation of what the song is referring to.  No independent reliable sources have presented.  If anybody wishes to save this, I recommend copying to user-space, finding sources, and making a new artricle, with citations on every item.  Any place, other than article space, would be good.   --Rob 04:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Assuming that the original research problems are tackled. Blank Verse 06:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Encyclopedias are more than, and have always been more than, repositories of obvious knowledge.  Some of the best entries in the Encyclopedia Britannica are about little-known, covert aspects of culture.  Admittedly, these may be harder to verify than obvious knowledge, and may run closer to personal viewpoints than some might feel comfortable with.  But they are, in their own way, the reason that we have Encyclopedias in the first place.  Keep this entry, and keep the small contribution it makes to the soul of Wikipedia.PaulLev 07:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep as per above and Jmabel. Asterion talk 15:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per PaulLev. 71.167.194.125 18:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge, the overt/covert distinction is subjective and frankly a bit silly.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  00:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Tributes are core to popular music, in my openion it is excactly in this area that the project excels. Needs work, but work can be done. + Ceoil 01:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I hope that it is not a surprise to anyone that musicians make inobvious allusions to earlier performers & their contemporaries. Deleting this article does not solve the problem that some editors will try to push their own theories & original research into this list; these tendentious editors will find other ways to accomplish their goals (will this also lead to a ban of any section header similar to "Trivia", "X in popular culture", "Cultural references in X", etc. that might appear in any article?). The proper way to fix this problem is on the Talk page for this article: state that a given claim needs references. If someone hasn't tried that solution before listing an article on AfD, it's hard to assume good faith when the article appears here first. -- llywrch 01:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've seen people throwing around the "it's hard to assume good faith" threat quite a bit in this discussion, and frankly I don't understand it. Why is it hard to assume good faith? From my point of view, the lack of references indicates that the list probably is original research, which is a good reason for AFD. It didn't take me long to arrive at that reasoning either, and that reasoning seems like a fine one if you need help in assuming good faith. Moreover, I haven't seen any of the keep voters really tackle the OR issue in their arguments, other than just claiming it is not OR, or claiming it is impossible to understand why anyone could think it is. I would really like to see that addressed, and not because I'm convinced the article definitely needs to go. I am sympathetic to Robert A.West's request that we consider how long it would take to properly source this, and vote keep for now, to give the authors time to source it. As such, and especially because this is not reaching consensus any time soon, I will change my recommendation to keep. Charlie 11:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * NOTE: I moved discussion about trivia to talk page Tvoz | talk 08:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep There are now 15 explicit citations of sources. Moat of them have been added since the nomination, so I cannot criticize it; but it is out of date. Many of the uncited examples are references to songs by title or quotation instead of artist (whether these should be "covert" is another question). Do we need to trim this? Early and often. Delete it? No, not now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per Jmabel frummer 21:33, 31 December 2006 (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.