Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pull Me Under


 * 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   '''The multiple listing became difficult to manage as the discussion was leading to some being kept and some being deleted. Relisting would not help as that would only increase the potential number of conflicting outcomes. The suggestion to be bold makes sense. Redirect those that are agreed as the least notable, and relist individually those for which there is some doubt.'''.  SilkTork  *YES! 14:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Pull Me Under

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Nominated with:

WP:NSONG tells us three things relevant to this nomination. First, "[m]ost songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article." Second, songs must must the requirements of WP:GNG, although placement on "national or significant music charts ... [or winning] significant awards or honors" establishes a presumption of notability. And third, even if a song is notable, it should only be treated in a separate article "when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article...."

I like Dream Theater, but our articles on their singles catalog don't meet WP:NSONG's standards for separate articles. Notability is dubious for most, and their content appears to be a mixture of incidental or trivial details about the song, its video, and its release (we learn from Lie, for instance, that the pickups on the guitar played by John Petrucci in the video are green), descriptions of the song's musical structure (Home and Constant Motion, for instance, tell us about various time signature changes in the songs; readers who know what that means already know about it from listening to the songs, and anyone who doesn't know what it means is unlikely to care), and fancruft (according to Pull Me Under, a poster on the band's drummer's forum "recently stated that the [song's] abrupt ending was inspired by I Want You (She's So Heavy), a track from The Beatles" (internal quotation marks omitted)). Deletion seems appropriate. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The creating editors who are still active on Wikipedia have been notified of this AFD, as have registered editors who have made substantial recent contributions to the articles. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Better source, if not merge, Delete, and Keep. Dream Theater fan as well.

Delete: Another_Day_(Dream_Theater_song)

Better source, if not merge: Pull_Me_Under

Delete: Lie_(Dream_Theater_song) (love the green pickups part :D)

Delete: The Silent Man

Delete: Hollow Years

Delete, but mention: in Metropolis Part 2 article, Through_Her_Eyes

Keep, Better source and improve: Constant_Motion. Wording should change "thanks to Petrucci's guitar solo."

Weak Keep: Forsaken_(song)

Delete: A_Rite_of_Passage The Weak Willed 12:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Chart info added for Pull Me Under (#10), Another Day (#22), Take the Time (#29), Lie (#38). I agree that DT has way too many song articles, I even commented on it, but it would appear nothing was ever done. Why every song on Systematic Chaos has a song, and yet none charted is beyond me. Those could probably be added to the list here as well, but the said songs that charted should be kept.  black ngold29  15:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Re chart positions, those would help establish notability, although I don't read WP:NSONG as conferring automatic notability on any charting single (I may have used stronger language than warranted in describing its effect as creating a presumption in favor of notability). As the nomination mentions, however, establishing notability (particularly when notability is weak) doesn't end the inquiry: There must also be sufficient content to justify a standalone article. As I understand that requirement, in order to survive scrutiny under WP:NSONG, a standalone article must present well-sourced information that would violate WP:DETAIL if it was included in the article for the album on which it appears. If it doesn't, the article should be deleted, or a merge and redirect performed to the appropriate parent article, even if the song is notable.
 * Re the other articles, I agree, but there's a question of how to approach the matter. You don't want to do it one by one - that's monstrously inefficient. At the same time, nominating every article in that class would be too broad, and would be a nightmare to administer (it took quite a while to do the necessary evaluating, collating, tagging, and notifications for just these eleven). Starting with the singles catalog seemed to make sense, because it presents a discreet subset of the DT song articles, which made creating a multi-article AFD somewhat easier . If consensus supports deleting these articles, I'll start looking at the other song articles to work out whether and how further AFDs are appropriate. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This thing of deleting articles everywhere makes me sick. I think they should stay where they are, and where they always have been. In Lie, for example, we all know that the pickups are green, but I didn't know it was the Steve Vai signature guitar, a guitar Petrucci never played live, but used only in that video clip. The different time signatures in Constant Motion is something that helps people trying to play the song theirselves. I like Wikipedia because we can always find information about the entire discography of a band, information about the creation process of the songs, CD cover arts... It's a complete source of information. I vote to keep everything the way it is, and if someone isn't happy with the content of the articles, then try to complete it! --Rodolfostanic (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment the above comment provided a good argument for keeping them. I will look for more information on these songs and improve as much as I can by 18:00 EST on Monday. The Weak Willed 14:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

CD Release Surely it is useful to include any Singles which were given a direct single release or EP of their own, rather than just a promo release. "Another Day", "Lie", "The Silent Man", "Hollow Years", "Through Her Eyes" and "Forsaken" fall into this category. "Rite of Passage" and "Constant Motion" are more dubious as they do have quite widespread promo CD circulation but are not official CD singles, only radio/video/digital. http://www.dreamtheater.net/disco_dreamtheater.php confirms this for older singles by only mentioning those with official CD releases, though for some reason Forsaken EP is not mentioned. As an EP, though, it surely warrants an article as much as "Change of Seasons" does. Information on song construction and video (green pickups!) is probably not useful but surely information on track listings and edits and suchlike are useful for catalogueing one's music. Encyclopedia Metallum (http://www.metal-archives.com/) contains track info (all that is needed for the articles I think) on not only the commercial singles but also the promotional. This article does, on a related note, also contain info on the ytsejam official bootlegs, which together with information from www.ytsejamrecords.com could surely produce a few useful articles on said official bootlegs. www.dreamtheater.net could do the same along with www.metal-archives.com for the Christmas CDs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Athlon Duster (talk • contribs) 14:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That position is directly contradicted by WP:NSONGS, as the nomination explains. Neither your argument nor Rodolfostanic's actually address the problem. Instead of tackling NSONGS, you're advancing WP:ILIKEIT arguments that miss the point entirely. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't find anything else to add to these articles. For other AfD's you may want to see Category:Dream_Theater_songs. A lot of stuff to cut out there The Weak Willed 17:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment:
 * All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
 * Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts (...) are probably notable.
 * A separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article.

People should create some more useful articles theirselves instead of discussing what articles are "appropriate for deletion" or not. For all the articles cited here, there is significant coverage, most of them ranked on music charts, and there is enough material to make detailed articles. The articles are so detailed that we even know what guitar Petrucci used for the Lie video, and the color of the pickups. Reading Another Day, we can learn that the lyrics are about Petrucci's father. In Take The Time, using the information about the samples at the beggining of the song, I edited myself a very similar intro, so that I can use during my live performances of the song as a keyboard player. This kind of information is useful to the fans, and these articles don't infringe any rules of WP:NSONGS. I don't see why they should be deleted.--Rodolfostanic (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You're quoting a policy that directly contradicts your position. NSONGS excludes these songs; your theory that adding trivial fancruft to the article bootstraps them into having sufficient detail to merit an independent article is preposterous. What's more, your argument that you've used the articles to create a similar keyboard intro is foreclosed by WP:NOTHOWTO, and fails to explain in any event why such material couldn't be adequately contained in the parent article, Images and Words. We're not talking about whether this is material that can be included anywhere, we're talking about whether it justifies separate articles. It does not. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 18:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I see very little "coverage" anywhere in these articles. Most are full of WP:OR and unsourced statements, and while most of the info is probably true it would be more appropriate for the Dream Theater wiki than WP. We can't decide what to keep and delete based on what is "interesting", every song ever written surely has something interesting to someone, so we must follow the policy setforth undeer WP:NSONGS. I feel that "Pull Me Under", "Pull Me Under", "Another Day", "Take the Time", and "Lie" should be kept based on them having charted, but the other articles should have their information merged into the article concerning their album. Because Dream Theater writes such long songs, and thus is limited in the number of tracks on each album, a well-planned and -written article on each album does not have to sacrifice the info which fans find interesting. As can be seen in the Systematic Chaos aritlce, which I primarily wrote, most songs have enough info out there to write a paragraph about, but most do not fulfill the requirements of its own article.  black ngold29  21:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Officially released singles from a very well known group. WP:NOTPAPER and I really do hate deletionists, but I accept that they might not all meet WP:NSONG requirements.  Relevant content can be merged into the album articles.  91.110.190.226 (talk) 11:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Delete them all as nsongs. Wether B (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - his AfD is fundamentally unmanageable and I don't think it can result in a decent consensus of any sort. To my view, Pull Me Under is clearly notable based on its unusually high chart performance and is almost certainly adequately sourceable. The same is true to a lesser extent to some of the others - some of the other songs listed, conversely, are clearly non-notable and contain nothing but trivia. Dealing with them all at once is not the way to go about this; as the same concerns apply in very different degrees to each single. Renomination of some of them separately may be a good move; but no consensus is going to come out this particular discussion. ~ mazca  talk 19:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree; I see consensus based on what has been said above. If we sum the positions taken by nomination and comments by User:TheWeakWilled, user:Blackngold29, user:Wether_B, and your own (the comment by user:Rodolfostanic offers no serious argument beyond WP:ILIKEIT and so does not count), I think that we could say the following is the consensus position between those comments:
 * Delete: The Silent Man, Hollow Years, Home, A Right of Passage, Forsaken
 * No consensus: Another Day, Lie, Constant Motion
 * Keep (procedural or substantive): Pull Me Under, Take the Time, Through Her Eyes
 * I don't object if the outcome of this discussion is to delete the five for which we have consensus to delete, and then to add the proposed merge tags to the parent articles for the rest after the AFD closes. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure I agree with you even that far - in general, non-notable singles need merging and redirecting to album articles rather than deleting. Yes, these are crufty articles with minimal notability, but I generally think they'd be better off redirected or very selectively merged. My view is that these would be best handled individually; with the majority being easily dealt with via a WP:BOLD redirect or a quick talk-page discussion. ~ mazca  talk 17:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * With respect, I think you're missing the point. I'm not saying that you or I agree with the consensus, I'm saying it exists. You want a procedural keep followed by merge proposals across the board; I want a delete across the board. The fact that we have our own opinions, however, doesn't mean that there isn't consensus for doing something else, and as I said, I think we have consensus to keep and merge some (as you'd like) and consensus to delete others (as I'd like). - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm skeptical in general of consensuses gained by mass nomination of articles that do not share the same degree of problems: certain votes made above give me the impression that the participant really hasn't evaluated the articles separately, but has simply reached a snap judgment based on looking at one and applied it to all. While I think a consensus could be pulled from this discussion, I'm not really convinced it would be a particularly strong one at all, hence my personal views. Either way, this is up to whoever gets stuck closing this! :) ~ mazca  talk 18:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It may be a good candidate for relisting. No consensus closes are preferred over a relist when "there has been substantive debate, and disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and it appears that consensus will not be achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable" (WP:RELIST). In other words, a no consensus close is appropriate when we think everyone who is likely to weigh in has weighed in, the differences are intractable, and leaving the nomination open longer is unlikely to break the logjam by bringing in new voices. Here, there have been only a few comments that are on-point (I discount the ILIKEIT comments), so relisting may solicit further input. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:00, 13 August 2009 (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.