Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Round and Round (Aerosmith song)


 * 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 all and nominate particular songs separately if further deletion debate is sought.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Round and Round (Aerosmith song)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

These articles fail to meet the criteria for songs at WP:MUSIC. Most of them are also written in a non-encyclopedic tone, and contain original research or other unattributable statements. Some may be mergeable into their albums' pages, but most should be deleted. --DCrazy talk/contrib 22:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * These articles are stubs and need to be extended. Just have a look on the following category. All those articles are stubs. To add an article to this category, please use Single-stub. Janadore 23:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't believe most, if not all of these, are worthy of extension. At best they can be merged into their albums' pages.  I went through each article in the Aerosmith songs category and took care to omit the ones which met the notability guidelines.  Plus, not all of the above are singles.  --DCrazy talk/contrib 01:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all. Enough with the deletionist stuff.  This is absoultely sickening.  Aerosmith is one of the most important and influential musical groups ever and are listed as a high-priority musician on Wikipedia, one of only a handful.  If the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, and AC/DC get articles for every song, Aerosmith should at least get articles for their most notable songs.  Additionally, many of these are singles...17 in fact.  Seven reached the Hot 100.  One is deemed one of the 500 most influential rock songs of all time.  One has a tour named after it.  Others were big rock hits, concert staples, or are featured on so many compilations, on the radio, in concert, or covered so many times that they are practically hits.  This is absolutely ridiculous.  Maybe try Wiki-fying or expanding these articles if they aren't to your suiting. Abog 02:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Here regarding song notability standards, which are only a guideline, still under construction anyway.
 * - Major radio network hit
 * - Part of motion picture score
 * - Hot 100 and Top 40 (U.S.); Publicity campaign (NFL 2003 & Nascar 2007); Major network radio hit
 * - Hot 100 in U.S. & U.K. (Top 40 in U.K.); Video on major network; Major network radio hit
 * - Hot 100 in U.S. (just shy of Top 40); Live staple; Title track; Re-mixed; Signature song of a notable performer (Joe Perry)
 * - Hot 100 in U.S., U.K., and Australia (Top 40 in U.S.); Certified gold single; Major video network hit; Major radio network hit; Major award (MTV VMA)
 * - Top 40 in Latvia; Major video network hit; Publicity campaign (had a tour named after it)
 * - technological innovation: one of first full-length commercial products available for Internet download
 * - Hot 100 in U.S.
 * - Hot 100 in U.S.; multiple versions/mixes
 * - Hot 100 in U.S., just one place shy of Top 20; signature song of a notable performer (Brad Whitford)
 * - Major video network hit, one of Aerosmith's first videos; notable as only hit away from original lineup
 * - Major radio network hit; Featured on B-sides and live compilations; covered by the Breeders
 * - Featured on numerous compilations; Guns N' Roses prominetly covered it; Had a nightclub named after it; Steven Tyler's tattoo bears its name; Aerosmith's first single; Major radio network hit
 * - Publicity campaign (featured on SNL, roller coaster, etc.)
 * - Defines the band; covered by Velvet Revolver
 * - Defines heavy metal genre; Covered numerous times
 * - Major radio network hit
 * - featured on numerous compilations; major radio network hit; live staple
 * - Hot 100 in U.K.; part of motion picture score
 * - Released as single; Major radio network hit
 * - Major video network hit
 * - Part of Rock and Roll Hall of Fame's 500 Songs That Shaped Rock and Roll, a very prestigious honor; Major radio network hit; Covered numerous times


 * Also, some food for thought: AC/DC, who has a similar amount of songs in their catalog as Aerosmith's, similar genre/style (hard rock), similar career lengths, and similar success (60-70 million albums sold in U.S.; Over 100 worldwide) currently has 106 articles in Category:AC/DC songs. Conversely, Aerosmith only has 65 song articles, a number that would be reduced to the forties range should these all get deleted.  Nevermind the fact that Aerosmith has over 30 Hot 100 singles and over 40 Mainstream Rock hits. Abog 02:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The songs you claim were "major radio network hits" would be backed by chart placements if indeed they were, because charts are generated from station playlists as well as record sales. Top 100 placement is not as spectacular an accomplishment as you might think, and not every song, no matter who wrote it, must be included in Wikipedia, especially when the primary content of the page is the (unverifiable) statement that it is "possibly one of Aerosmith's hardest-rocking songs".  Don't get me wrong, I'm an Aerosmith fan, but this is not an Aerosmith wiki.  --DCrazy talk/contrib 03:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently you're not familiar with the article Aerosmith discography. Go down to the singles section, and you will see that almost all of these songs are singles and charted high on either rock raido (Mainstream Rock) or the Hot 100.  I feel that all of those should be left alone.  Also, I'm very baffled at some of the songs you want to delete versus those that should stay.  Seriously, you want to delete "Last Child" and "Back in the Saddle" but not "Fever" or "What Kind of Love Are You On"??  "Blind Man" but not "Walk on Water"??  "Lightning Strikes" but not "Shela"??  Your logic makes absolutely no sense to me.  Also, you say this is not an Aerosmith wiki.  Well, this is also not a Beatles wiki, but they have about 198 separate song articles and probably 100 other Beatles-related articles.  Still, both groups are prominent musicians and cultural icons, and their songs thus deserve a place here.  I'd like to increase knowledge on Wikipedia, I don't know about you. Abog 02:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep and clean up. I dislike bulk nominations in general especially when at least some of these songs are clearly notable as singles and/or well known Aerosmith songs. Capitalistroadster 03:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you'd like to delete only Aerosmith article. What happen next? You'd like to delete all stub articles? In the history of these articles you will find many edits by different user and I don't think that they have your opinion as well. It doesn't matter singles or songs. You can use Song-stub to add a song to this category. Please revert your own edits. Janadore 03:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, actually, you'll find that it's mostly you and User:Abog editing the articles. And no, I wouldn't like to "delete all stub articles."  I nominated articles which I feel do not meet the guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia.  And I happened upon the Round and Round article and prodded it.  Abog reverted the prod, so I did the logical thing and took it to AfD, and in the process decided to include other articles I also felt should be included.  --DCrazy talk/contrib 03:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep all: please, no bulk nominations like this. Argue each case on its merits. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 03:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all to avoid the chaos that a multiple nomination like this will invariably bring. Looking at the list and the arguments thus far, we've got a bunch of songs which need citations for reaching the Top X in Country Y (depending on precisely what values X and Y are given, that's notability), the first single by a notable band (notable first, therefore) and a collection of other songs which have done various things which may or may not equate to notability. Mass-nominating a large number of them isn't a good idea at all. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Would it have been preferable for me to have nominated each article separately? I would think it's better to have one place to debate the merits of each article.  Does the AfD process require that every article nominated receive the same judgment?  (I tend not to get involved in too many AfD debates.)  --DCrazy talk/contrib 14:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably. Just evaluating all of those articles for deletion would easily take an hour.  Actually saving all of these articles(I believe it's possible for us to write an article about almost any song by almost any noteworthy band.  The key is completely ignoring WP:SYNTH and borging together comments from album reviewers.) would easily take 10 hours of work, assuming only half need substantial rewriting and doing so only takes 45 minutes each.  People generally prefer that nominators spread mass AfD's out over a few days so the limited number of people willing to improve them aren't so overwhelmed. Chris Croy 16:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Another option would be to bundle together the songs which have articles suffering from the same problem. If there are three articles which assert notability by saying that the song is "a fan favourite" (for example) and nothing else, then bundle them together, since that's a relatively similar problem. Someone may happen along with sources to demonstrate that two of them are notable, in which case the system is doing its job. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete most. Most of these are not notable enough for their own article. Placing in the Top 100 or beign on a soundtrack is not enough for an article. It needs more than that, like being frequently covered. Of course, there are lots of other songs on wikipedia with equal lack of notability, and rooting them all out would be a painful job. But the rule should be not to let them proliferate, because potentially that would mean hundreds of thousands of such articles. Where the song is a track on an album, the info could easily be given at the album's article. (AC/DC do not deserve all their songs to have articles either!) BobFromBrockley 14:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, improve the articles if they aren't good enough, the topics are worthwhile, and no argument has been made that their current state is so unacceptable as to require deletion. Let me also express my sincere disapproval of this bulk nomination, too: with so many different songs of different quality and popularity in the list, this debate turns into a debate on the principle of whether to have song articles or not... which I think clearly we do allow in many cases.  Mango juice talk 21:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, due to bulk-nom farce. Nom them separately or not at all, then each can be voted on its merits.DewiMorgan 19:42, 18 May 2007 (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.