Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pride of South Australia


 * 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 merge all. I remind the nominator that you don't need to run an AfD to merge things, just be WP:BOLD. Mango juice talk 11:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The Pride of South Australia

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not a list of lyrics. See WP:NOT. The non-lyrical information, which is at best sentence or two worth of information, should be integrated into the team's page. Songs that merit their own article have articles like this or this. Please note that this nomination includes 15 articles of this nature. --Cheeser1 21:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\talk 00:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge -- and redirect to the relevant team articles where possible. - Longhair\talk 00:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with their respective teams. --Candy-Panda 01:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 02:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am inclined to suggest delete on the grounds that we should not be inflicting such appallingly bad lyrics on an even wider audience than are already subjected to them weekly at this time of year here in Melbourne -:) They are not notable and should be merged into the articles on the clubs concerned. --Bduke 03:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * give 'em the old heave-ho nothing to merge, more advertorial than artiicle especially as it includes the "sony BMG catalogue number", AfD should also include the template Gnangarra 03:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Templates have a different process for deletion. If (when) these articles are deleted (or merged and removed), I plan to TfD the template, since at that point it would be used nowhere and have nothing but dead-end wiki-links. --Cheeser1 04:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Any ideas about the copyright of the lyrics; can they be transwikied to Wikisource? John Vandenberg 03:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment:An interesting side-point: the use in Wikipedia of these lyrics, if copyrighted, doesn't even fall under fair use, since no meaningful or critical commentary is provided. Part of the reason, I think, that the lyrics themselves must be deleted (unless someone can demonstrate that they are not copyrighted or provide adequate commentary to substantiate an article). I have no clue about copyright, and none about where to find out either. --Cheeser1 04:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think they would be copyrighted as Sony BMG has the distribution rights to them Gnangarra 04:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, surely not. These songs are sung everywhere. Distribution rights for a recording has nothing to do with copyright on the lyrics. Are the words of Marines' hymn which one of these uses for a tune a copyvio? They are in that article. The point is here that the songs are not notable enough and should be merged into the Club articles. Copyright just confuses that. --Bduke 11:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge, quite clearly not notable on their own, but still information that would be useful on the relevant team pages. Lankiveil 04:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete all as non-notable and probable copyvio. Ford MF 09:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. Um, aren't these a breach of copyright reproducing song lyrics. Should't they be speedily deleted. Assize 11:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: That may be true for some, or even all, of the songs. Unfortunately, I cannot determine the copyright status for all 15 of these, and it makes much more sense as I see it to regular-delete them. Speedy deletion might be harder to estabilsh, and it's unnecessary since determining the copyright status of these lyrics doesn't change the fact that they shouldn't be here anyway. But the point is well taken: if they are in fact copyrighted, that's yet another reason they need to be removed from Wikipedia. --Cheeser1 11:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as copyvio per Cheeser1's and Gnangarra's comments. Some information other than the lyrics if verified *could* be added to the club's article in each case, as has been done with the West Coast Eagles (whose song section in the article contains the same copyvio issues). Orderinchaos 21:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * They also have the lyrics in the article about the team? :O jeez! Talk about redundancy. My head just exploded. --Cheeser1 21:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Shake down the thunder from the sky - WP is not the place for lyrics, definitely not in separate articles, even without the fact that some are subject to copyright. Sufficient info on the songs is generally included in articles already without merging. JPD (talk) 11:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with the appropriate team pages. Team fight song lyrics are not copyright violations, as they have either been created by fan groups, or have been released by the team in question as in the public domain (as in the fight songs for NFL teams, including the Washington Redskins, Philadelphia Eagles and the Chicago Bears) --Mhking 12:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Question: Up until now, everyone has asserted that the lyrics' copyright status is indeterminate. Do you have evidence supporting the claim that are in the public domain? (Is there perhaps some reason a fan group is not entitled to copyrights on songs they write?) Are you proposing that we merge the entire set of lyrics into the team articles? ---Cheeser1 14:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: There is an entire category for college and pro fight songs for multiple sports (Category:Fight songs), and the specifics can be seen in songs like Bear Down Chicago Bears (i.e., the Chicago Bears' fight song). Hence the precedent has been established on Wikipedia. These songs would fall underneath that category and classification, and if they are not merged back to their original articles, should be retained, and placed underneath that categorization. --Mhking 15:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. There is no such thing as "precedent" in this sense, since (1) those other fight songs could easily be AfD'd and (2) some fight songs may be encyclopedic while others may not. If a fight song has a substantial article with actual content that merits having a separate article, I see no reason not to have one. I don't know about all of the articles in that category (or the ones that aren't in it but should be) -- and I'm certainly not going to pick through them precisely in order to AfD the 100-something of them that don't merit their own article, not all at once. But none of the articles in this AfD have such merit, are dubious as to violations of copyright, and are basically just a sentence worth of info that could be merged into the teams' articles, if not already there. At least, that's my reading of wikipolicy. --Cheeser1 17:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I would agree with Cheeser that WP:COPY trumps pretty much any other argument in dealing with these. It may be in some cases that there is no copyright, in which case there is no problem (except that the information is almost definitely unencyclopaedic and belongs on the club's own webpage, which is after all linked from the article). Orderinchaos 02:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment As the person who created it - if these articles are deleted then Category:Australian rules football songs needs to go too. I know that's an MfD not an AfD but it will be empty if the articles are deleted.Garrie 02:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all - Is it reasonable to assume that someone may try to get to the Adelaide Crows page by searching "The Pride of South Australia"? Come off it.--Yeti Hunter 03:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * delete all a few of these might be old enough to be PD, but most aren't. In any case, unless an article can actually be written about a song that establishes its separate notability, with references, a separate article just for the lyrics is not needed. FredCups 21:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge Most suitable solution for this situation. But are the songs covered by copyright? Does the AFL own them or the clubs? Also, would some of the songs be in the public domain because some have been around for quite a while. Lots of other song articles (not mainstream stuff) have lyrics probably not covered by copyright? (not too sure myself). Also, ensure the lyrics are copied and pasted over at LyricWiki. --Lakeyboy 10:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I contacted the Fremantle Football Club,and ask who held the copyright to the lyrics of the club song the response was quick(inside 24 hours) that the AFL is the copyright holder. If anyonbe wants to see the conversation just email me and I'll forward it along. Gnangarra 06:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I appreciate you going and actually figuring out whether this stuff is copyvio (I'm sure others do too). It clears up alot about this AfD. Much thanks. --Cheeser1 06:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep but without the lyrics, and reduced to the historical information (who wrote the score and lyrics, when it became the official anthem, etc.) User:Jorge Stolfi as 60.32.109.194 16:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to be disagreeable, but that will leave us with permanently-stub articles. It would seem to make far more sense for a sentence or two to constitute a subsection in the article about the football team than to have unexpandable one- and two-sentence articles floating around. --Cheeser1 20:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge as per the original suggestion by Cheeser1 I am a AFC fan but find all team lyrics unbearable unless it's the grand final. If people want the actual lyrics they can wait for a team to win a match and then put up with the screamed version before the TV cameras in the locker rooms. Sa87 09:23, 16 June 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.