Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Presidents (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   delete. Clearly fails WP:NSONG. It may be pop-culture, but not encyclopedic on its own. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 15:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The Presidents (song)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for music. Neelix (talk) 23:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, or redirect to List of Animaniacs episodes. I thought for sure I would find more about this song in reliable sources and I was all ready to vote keep, but really all I could come up with is this brief mention in The Well-Trained Mind: A Guide to Classical Education at Home.  There are plenty of hits on lyrics databases, educational websites, and the like, but there just doesn't seem to be "significant coverage" of this particular song "in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" under WP:NSONG.    Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 02:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep -- this article's presence makes Wikipedia better, and so in keeping with ignoring all rules, I say we be bold and allow it to remain. You're saying that because you couldn't find articles that talk about it, we shouldn't have it?  Who do you think is going to write about something like this?  It's a famous song, verified by it's having been on TV numerous times as part of a notable cartoon show put out by a notable production company on a notable channel.  I'm not trying to chain things along as though we should have an article on Bill Murray's uncle because he's the uncle of a notable person...but give it a break, please!  You couldn't find a google hit that doesn't reference the song?  What are you expecting?  The song definitely exists, it is definitely well known and the fact that google is not a good place to search for information on it doesn't decrease its notability.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 02:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Other than sites like YouTube and educational blogs/forums, I failed to find any RS mentioning this song. DRosenbach, WP:IAR does not override WP:5P - Wikipedia is not about The TruthTM, its about verifiability. Anything not supported by RSs does not belong to Wikipedia, unless they are so obvious that virtually every reader either already believe in it("we can't live without food") or can verify it with reasonable ease("cutting your hand with a knife will cause pain"). Same for notablity: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of info. In order to be worth including, they need to be notable, and notability is established by reliable sources.  Blodance  the   Seeker   07:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC) Blodance   the   Seeker   07:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The reliable source is the television shows that have run on TV. And I find your apparent violate of WP:NPOV laughable in dictating what does and does not fall under the rubric of WP:IAR.  Its very essence allows it to run over any policy/guideline obstacle as long as the manifestation of the suggested violation serves Wikipedia for the better.  One can hardly assert that a world famous song played as an accompaniment to a well-established TV show numerous times does not demand inclusion in an online encyclopedia claiming to present the vastness of all reliable information.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 23:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, did you even read WP:5P? "Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here." it states very clearly that WP:IAR shall not override the basic policies. Fame and notability is not based on claims. It is based on reliable sources. And reliable sources are defined here, not based on your claims. Further, according to your own logic, how can you accuse people of violating rules if you cite WP:IAR for your own defense and claim that it overrides every rule on WP? Please stop this nonsense.  Blodance  the   Seeker   01:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:NSONG. It doesn't make Wikipedia better. It just reinforces the impression that WP is a repository for cruft and pop culture trivia. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete does not appear to be significant coverage in third party reliable sources. Polargeo (talk) 09:08, 26 January 2010 (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.