Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs in triple meter (1990-1999)


 * 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 of the debate was no consensus. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

List of songs in triple meter (1990-1999)
See also List of songs in triple meter (2000-2009). Listcruft. If the goal is, as the author said in this afd, to demonstrate a musical trend, then such a trend can be noted in existing articles, such as the triple metre article. This list, and its subsequent placement as a link in multiple band articles, is overkill. Jersyko  talk  15:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, it seems like this would be a useful resource for musicologists. - SimonP 15:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment, this is a good point, though I doubt that the list could ever be complete enough to be a useful resource. In any event, placing links to this article in such articles as Death Cab for Cutie or Built to Spill, as the author has done, seems no different to me than putting a link to Bands whose names start with D or Bands who use whole notes in such articles.  While I understand that my arguement here is a bit of a slippery slope/exaggeration, my basic point is that triple meter is a much too common identifying feature to be a useful descriptor. -  Jersyko   talk  15:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Simon, have you checked Triple metre? - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 18:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Just zis Guy, you know? wants this list gone so badly that he's taken to soliciting other users to change their votes? Hilarious!--Hraefen 07:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * While I admire what was already there, Triple metre did not include any information about modern pop music until I put a single line in there just moments ago. Jacqui  ★ 03:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. --Idont Havaname 15:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. These music lists are maintained, and people find them useful. Trollderella 17:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete trivial list &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per arguments in Articles_for_deletion/Songs_in_triple_meter - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 17:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. -R. fiend 17:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per SimonP. Lists don't have to be complete to be a useful resource. Kappa 20:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment, I agree generally, but I still fail to see how this is a useful resource, or at least any more so than the faux lists mentioned in my above comment would be given the common nature of triple meter. - Jersyko   talk  20:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep (does the article creator get a vote?) This is a good resource for musicologists and musicians and doesn't need to be complete to be so. It says right up top that it should not be thought of as complete.  All it needs to do is give modern examples of what some think of as a quaint and boring meter.  But "My Name Is Jonas" is not quaint.  "Judith" is not boring.  Every band page where I placed a link had few or no links in 'see also,' so it's not as if I'm crowding those sites.  And while triple meter is not uncommon per se, it is not as ubiquitous as detractors of this article would have others believe.  For anyone who claims this, please, on your next visit to this afd page, write in three examples that would fit this category.  Be honest.  Don't go surf the net looking.  Top of your head.  How about two?  One?  I only know of a few bands who do more than, say, a fifth of their songs in triple meter.  If you can actually think of a number of examples, why not add them and make this page better rather than trying to delete it.  I firmly believe that Wikipedia is a better resource with theses lists on it.  I don't know of anywhere else with anything like this and I have looked.  Especially a resource with linked text like wiki.  I also don't think it's fair to judge this article on what was said in an afd for another article with different criteria i.e. no date parameters where these are neatly defined by decade.  Take the article for what it IS, the way a user would see it, not for something written in an afd for editors/contributors, etc. And while I understand that Jersyko's examples are intentionally hyperbolic, I'm going to respond anyway.  You can't hear a band and say 'These guys sound like their band stars with a d' and saying that a band uses whole notes, half notes, whatever, is like saying they use sound to make music.  You CAN listen to music and tell that it is in triple meter.  There are certain bands that use triple meter and most avoid it like the plague.  As Trollderella points out...these lists are maintained.--Hraefen 00:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. In fact I think this is speediable as a re-creation of content previously voted for deletion. Also, based on the contributor's explanation above, this is essentially original research. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, per Dpbsmith. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 12:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * What has to be done to make this 'not original research?' Do I have to provide a link or paper resource for every single song noted?  Do I have to go one step further and show that I also got these songs from a list that already exists in published form somewhere?  Does it matter that many modern bands never write their songs down in a way that people would consider standard notation?  And if so, does this forever prevent these songs from being treated in any kind of analytic way on Wikipedia?  I'm being serious here.  I want someone to justify this to me because I don't agree with it.--Hraefen 12:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You're trying to document the existence of a trend where no notice of this trend has been taken outside of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the place to initially publish new ideas. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 13:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No original research is a longstanding Wikipedia policy with broad consensus. What you need to do is write an article on the renaissance of triple meter in U. S. popular song, or the musical virtues of triple meter, submit it to a journal of musicology or Rolling Stone or something like that, get it published, and wait for other people to pick up on the idea. When it becomes generally accepted and someone can cite a couple of good sources, then someone can write an encyclopedia article about it.
 * Wikipedia is not an online magazine like Salon. It is not for publication of original research and essays, even if the ideas in them are meritorious and well-supported. It is an encyclopedia, a secondary reference.
 * The reason for this policy is that unlike print publications, anyone can contribute to Wikipedia, so readers cannot trust in the authority of Wikipedia's authors. Nor can readers trust consensus judgements of WIkipedians on the merits of a new idea. On the other hand, it is possible for Wikipedians, even WIkipedians who disagree about the validity of an idea, to agree about whether the article cites sources that show that the idea is well established and widely held.
 * A sensible idea ("triple meter has been undervalued and is experiencing a resurgence") with no source citations is not a Wikipedia article.
 * A cockamamie idea ("the earth is a hollow sphere and we live on the inside of it") with plenty of citations showing that this is a real idea that people have and still do really believe in is a valid Wikipedia article.
 * You can't use Wikipedia to promulgate new ideas, not even the worthiest. I don't know how to make it any clearer than that. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't actually see much evidence that it is more common in popular song now than it ever was - maybe the author's favourite bands just reached the ballad phase :-) As it is, triple metre is and always will be uncommon in rock anthems and much more common in ballads. It is no more or less common in modern classical music than that of the Renaissance as fars as I can tell - I have in my hand the score for Karl Jenkins' The Armed Man; it has movements in triple metre and some in duple and some which switch between the two. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 15:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * And yes, if someone challenged one of the entries, claiming it was really in duple meter, I'd expect you to have evidence to back up the listing, something better than "I listened to it and it sounds like triple meter." List of works in irregular time signatures has been a regular battleground on this point. Verifiable in this case does mean that you need to find printed sheet music to back up the listing, and if it doesn't exist, then it's original research and doesn't belong on WP. &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete OR, listcruft. Xoloz 03:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * OK. Again.  I'm not trying to PROVE anything.  I just want an admittedly incomplete list of songs.  PLEASE stop inferring things from a prior afd where I said I was tracking a trend.  I just want an incomplete list of songs and if I have to provide documentation for them I will look for that documentation.  But if someone is going to try to delete this on some other grounds, well, that would be wasted time.  What kind of documentation is acceptable?  A link to a guitar tab page which indicates meter?  I need to know what the wiki community finds acceptable.  I'm sure many of you hate List of works in irregular time signatures as well, but until I see that page on the afd page (and I don't want to), I really feel as though these lists are being held to a standard much higher than that one and many others.  And as far as being a battleground...irregular times are much more complicated and hard to figure out.  I don't see these lists being nearly as contentious.  Now, just for good measure...I'm not trying to PROVE anything...an incomplete list is just an incomplete list.  Please consider it as such when voting on this page.--Hraefen 18:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Then what, exactly, do you mean when you worry that deleting this page might "forever prevent these songs from being treated in any kind of analytic way on Wikipedia?" What sort of analytical article were you contemplating? Dpbsmith (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Analytic was kind of a sloppy word choice, but I couldn't think of a better one at the time. All I meant was that if there is a song that I can't find documentation for (which very well could happen), does that forever prevent that song from being written about in the areas of meter, or key, or instrumentation, etc.  Even if it's not contentious for someone to say that a song has a guitar, piano, bass and drums, does some source need to be cited for that?  I'm not trying to change the way wiki articles are created, validated, etc., I just want to know what the standard procedure is and then work within it.  I don't think it will be that hard to do if everyone can understand that this is only a list...nothing more, and I'll give documentation where I need to--Hraefen 21:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep This is cool. There are other Coldplay songs in 3/4 I'm pretty sure on their new album.  I'll add them if I can find them.Monkey500 22:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as violating the spirit of CSD:G4, re-creation of deleted content. And, substantively, for the reasons stated in that AfD. MCB 23:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Why is everyone so hung up on what was said in an afd? A list is only a list.  I'm not asserting anything regardless of what I wrote in a prior afd.  So, do people's reasons for making an article determine whether that list/article is valid?  No.  The content alone is what matters and everyone needs to remove their ego from this discussion.  From the wiki policy on original research "However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged."  So, if I provide sources, this is not original research.  I made an example of this.   (2000) "3 Libras" by A Perfect Circle   Is this acceptable to those of you citing the charge (one of at least three trying to be used to erase this article) of no original research? --Hraefen 23:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a weak citation, but certainly it is a citation. &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 04:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. In the last AfD, many people said that they would support a list like this, even if not that one, so I don't see how people think this should be a speedy. And this is most certainly not OR (see Hraefen's comments re: that). Personally, if I were a musicologist doing a project on modern music in triple meter, I would find this useful. Jacqui  ★ 03:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I assure you that musicologists, like other professional academics, rely on serious publications for their information, not pop-culture phenomena like Wikipedia. Also, they're expected to do their own research; copying out of the encyclopedia is frowned upon in the academic community. &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 04:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I suggest you cite that claim. Jacqui  ★ 06:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that Wahoofive is taking the definition of 'musicologist' a bit too literally. This list could be helpful to musicians, music enthusiasts, deejays, 'real' musicologists, music professors and teachers, high school band teachers, music buffs in general.  And anyone using wiki as a research tool knows that you don't cite wiki in a college paper or submission to a critical magazine, or anything 'official' really.  It just helps get the ball rolling.--  Hraefen 06:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe. Not clear why any of these people you mention would have any use for this list. It's not like conductors need to make a balance between duple and triple meters in their programs. &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well, I don't see the use for a lot of pages around here. But that doesn't mean that someone else may not find it useful. Should I go close the National Library for the Blind because I'm fully sighted? C'mon now. Jacqui ★ 02:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I've heard the "somebody, somewhere might find it useful" argument before. I don't think there's a single person on the planet who'd find this list useful. &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I do. And it's just one person's word against another's. Guess we're at an impasse, then. Jacqui ★ 23:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I've started to add the albums on which these songs are found. That's a primary source if I ever heard of one.  The burden of proof should stop there.  I should lot be limited in adding to wiki based a user's ability or inability to inspect and interpret that primary source.--Hraefen 07:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * What? That's about as valid a citation as saying President Bush is an alien, and providing a link to the White House as evidence. We're talking about interpretation of the music, and the fact of what album it's on is no evidence whatever. It doesn't change original research to ask readers to do their own original research to back it up. It's the assertion that a song is in triple meter that needs citation, not the song's existence. Any article on anything could use such an argument. &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 16:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok. This is copied straight out of No original research (section 1.1) and anyone can go look if they want.  "However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged."  A song is a primary source if I'm talking about a song.  How can a source get more primary than that?  If it states right in the No original research policy that it's ok to collect together primary sources, I don't know where  the charge of original research is coming from.  Wahoofive's president/White House analogy, upon further reflection, is just absurd.  Few people have access to either the president or the White House, but anyone with a library card or internet access could find most of the songs on this list.  Do I have to walk to their houses and hand them a mix tape of these songs?  Plenty of articles cite only a book which is shelved in a library somewhere and trying to force me to do anything more is silly.  Would you ask the writer of an article on The Great Gatsby to cite anything but that book as a primary source?  What else would there be that is considered primary?  People who can't interpret that primary source (i.e. can't read English/ don't understand time signatures) should respectfully bow out of the argument.  And why is all this fuss being made about verifiability when no one has even claimed that one of these songs is not appropriate to this list?  And even if someone does eventually do that, is that so bad?  Isn't that what happens all over wiki?  I don't know if I've read a talk page on an article more than a month old which had nothing in question.  Isn't the 'sifting and the winnowing' just part of wiki?  People are always going to disagree about certain things, but I think Wahoofive is really overestimating how contentious this list will be to anyone who would care enough to add to it or watch it (as I have said I will).--Hraefen 00:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You may be right about the overestimating part (I certainly have better things to do than try to challenge every entry on that list), but I just deny that every person who listens to a song will agree what meter it's in. Wikipedia is supposed to be a tertiary source. WP:V says "One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher." While the songs may be published, the assertion that they are in triple meter is not, unless you have sheet music or other documentary evidence. &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 06:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * keep This is not only a cool idea that makes you relisten to "Hooker With a Penis" with the family around the fire but it also serves to provide a musicology-based list that doesn't require a great deal of music based knowledge to internalize. Jdowen0902 01:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well. I think it's ridiculous that you wouldn't consider a song a primary source, but whatever, I see I'm not going to change your mind.  I think if a user cares enough to read a list, you kind of assume a certain level of knowledge and interest in the subject.  Enough for them to seek out an album to try to disprove something which seems wrong to them.  There are many lists which are not held to this standard.  But, this is a list of songs, and I have been finding out that they are primary targets of deletionists (and some of them undoubtedly deserve to be deleted).  For instance, the List of English words of Etruscan origin does not contain on it (or anywhere on wiki as far as I can tell) etymologies for the words 'ides' 'element' and 'style.'  It simply has a disclaimer at the top of the page which says that there are competing theories for some of the words.  Now, I'm not trying to use the "there's a less-than-perfect page on wiki so why have any standards?" argument, but I'm just pointing out that anyone who cares about a page/subject will contribute critical discussion, as has happend on the Etruscan site.  People who care will always be questioning.  This doesn't really seem like a fair compromise (to me), but why don't we simply tag the whole list with a 'factual dispute' tag that I've seen on many pages and also encourage users to note any disagreements they have on the talk page (and to add and edit boldly of course)?  I think it's silly, but I prefer it to seeing the lists deleted.  That will also allow me time to find secondary evidence.  I'll try to find secondary source evidence for everything, but a good place to start would be with a song which has been contested.  It's surprisingly hard to find sheet music for many modern bands, especially when their albums are not platinum-selling.  I'm really excited to see what this list could become after people of all musical tastes have the opportunity to add to it.--Hraefen 00:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't want any tags permanently affixed to the article. If we keep it, we keep it. &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 03:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP Let's just delete anything to do with modern music if this is deleted.  Seriously, not everyone who posts something on here has unlimited access to actual, proof-laden factual information to back up every single list or article that is posted.  Are we to deprive people of useful information just because there's no re-typed history of renaissance examples of triple-metered songs posted before a list?  Let's say I'm a DJ and I'm thinking of putting together a playlist for a wedding and I need songs that would match up well.  A waltz would most certainly match up to a song in triple meter over a song in standard 4/4.  Where would I find a list of songs I could play?  Wikipedia?  Maybe not if such a list is deleted.--kle5i5 13:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Edwardian 23:14, 18 November 2005 (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.