Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zum Gali Gali


 * 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. policy requires sitgnificant coverage and the sources provided do not appear to have provided that so by policy the delete votes are the most compelling but I'm open to a very quick undelete if someone does find some substantive sources Spartaz Humbug! 11:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Zum Gali Gali

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria described in WP:NSONGS. No references for verification. Spatulli (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a well-known folk song and should not be judged according to the criteria for commercially distributed popular music. It appears in numerous books of and about folk music: see, , , , , , , . In this article, Boy Scouts are suggested to sing "popular, easy to learn songs" such as "'Waltzing Matilda' (Australia), 'La Cucaracha' (Mexico), 'Allouette' (French Canada), or 'Zum Gali Gali' (Israel)." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To say "This is well known, it should be kept" is unprofessional and subjective. Anyway, I can tell you from my humble experience that this song is virtually unknown to most Israelis for example. Besides, the article's subject may or might not be notable, but it still lacks references and thus is not valid as an article in Wikipedia (as it is now). Spatulli (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it's well known because I personally know it. I'm saying that it's well known because it appears in many books. See for a scholarly article mentioning that another survey had listed it among 128 songs that all children should know from a K-12 music education, and one of only nine songs in the "multicultural" category. There probably are sufficient sources to get this article into decent shape, but I can't guarantee that I will be able to add them before the end of this AfD period.--Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "It appears in many books" reminds me of WP:LOTSOFSOURCES which is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. I saw all of those refs you brought in here and didn't see even one that could demonstrate the song's notability or give significant/decent coverage about it. Whilst showing the subject is mentioned in a number of sources, not all sources are reliable and may only be trivial mentions. Spatulli (talk) 15:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Metropolitan90 has provided references. The nominator's comment is a patent misrepresentation of what Metropolitan90 was saying. Opbeith (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you think I misrepresentated Metropolitan90's words, what I was just saying is that the article itself lacks references, an it's still true. My main point, however, is that no matter how much references you can find for this song, notability hasn't been established yet, as the significant coverage hasn't been found. I, personally, know about more than a hundred (!) songs from the halutzim period (before the State of Israel was born) so it won't bother me to create articles for them with plenty of references and listings I have about pioneer songs. Please see WP:ITEXISTS and WP:GNG for more information about the notability policy of Wikipedia, i.e. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Spatulli (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there an article about them? --Pnm (talk) 04:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In its present state, I'd vote to Delete, however, if it improves so that it approaches the level of usefulness as the La Cucaracha article, I'd vote to keep. --GHcool (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: mere reproduction or mere mention (which appears to be all that Metropolitan90's sources demonstrate), does not "address the subject directly in detail" and so does not demonstrate notability. No indication from Google News/Books either that any such depth of coverage will be forthcoming. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficient information for me to want it retained. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * May be sufficient enough for you, but not necessarily for the purpose of building an encyclopedia.. Spatulli (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete- Every source presented thus far has been a reproduction of the song itself, or an exceedingly passing mentions. As it currently stands, the article says little more than "Zum Gali Gali is an Israeli song, these are the words, this is how you sing it", and Wikipedia is not a how-to guide or a lyrics database. I am very open to changing my opinion if someone can come up with sources that go into depth about the song rather than actually being the song. Reyk  YO!  04:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep 307 results from a Google book search. A lot of people consider that to be an important folk song.  I don't know if any of those books has been reviewed someplace, or it or its writers have Wikipedia articles, and its too many to check all of them.  One of the 35 Google news results show it is used in protest, and make other references towards it.   D r e a m Focus  13:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.  Snotty Wong   soliloquize 17:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - All sources presented are either reproductions of the song or passing mentions. No indication of why it is notable.  Snotty Wong   soliloquize 17:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral - If there are sources, they should be implemented into the article to describe the song's notability and/or any importance. If this were done, my vote would be KEEP.  But since the references have been given and nothing has been added to the article to improve it, there doesn't seem a need to keep the article...  If it is notable as the long list of references (which I did not verify) imply, fix the article.  Otherwise, delete it.  ~ [  Scott M. Howard  ] ~ [  Talk  ]:[  Contribs  ] ~  18:54, 9 January 2011 (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.