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. MBisanz talk 03:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Killing Yourself to Live

[edit]
Killing Yourself to Live (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article fails WP:MUSIC. Song is an album track that has never been released as a single, has never placed on any international music charts, and has never been nominated for any significant music awards.

I am also nominating the following articles for deletion per the same rationale I used in creating this AfD:
After Forever (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Solitude (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Enigmamsg 03:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hexi does have a great sense of humour. I was getting entertained by the thought that he maybe he meant to put pita... and it made me start thinking about what I might combine on my own pita. We have to have humour... even in a heated debate. Hmmm heated pita combo. The Real Libs-speak politely 00:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How do you spell "PAIN IN THE ASS" then? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 06:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The generally accepted way would be PITA. Enigmamsg 20:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you then, I'm still learning English. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 21:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am concerned, Wikipedia relies on verifiability rather than on belief. The song Black Sabbath has a key role in the evolution if the whole heavy metal music genre. It is covered by non-trivial and independent sources. No evidence for deletion.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 11:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Key role is subjective pov no matter who says it. In the end it is still just a non-single, non-charting album track and the useful content from it could easily go back into the debut album article. All non-single, non-charting songs should be merged and deleted... no matter who has done a cover version of the song. "Cover version" is no different from "in popular culture" when it comes right down to it. And we have WP:TRIVIA to try and stress avoiding "in popular culture" styled content... which is really what text about a cover version is. Just nn trivia. Every Metallica album track has been deleted... every Iron Maiden album track has been deleted, every Queen album track has been deleted... every Megadeth album track etc etc etc. Soon they can all be turfed. The Real Libs-speak politely 21:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We can of course delete all song articles, and after we're finished we can follow the example of the German Wikipedia and delete about all album articles. Even Kraftwerk got two thirds of their album articles deleted.[1]. Two thirds is a good figure if you compare the 2.8m English articles to the 0.9m German ones... But what I really don't understand - what's the difference between some redirects to an album article, which then is overloaded and not much inviting to edit - and some rather small articles that invite especially new or occasional editors to make their contributions. BTT: As mentioned above about all Sabbath songs of the first four or five albums are notable - just take a look at dozens of guitar magazines analysing those riffs to death (same with at least Metallica up to their Black Album and to a certain amount also for the rest of your list), or all the other articles and books that have been written the past 40 years (Sabbath, 25 for Metallica). Again, we can of course delete all those songs, and people will never reflect that 3rd party coverage. But is that really what we want? Remember we're not talking about the song of some American Idol contestant (which of course would be notable if it ranked one week at #199 on the Billboard 200 - what a joke), but some classics that will sure be covered by young bands for decades to come - something that's already accepted for material by the Beatles. And even they have still about 100 stubs - shall we delete them, too? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 18:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The rules clearly state if they have been covered by a notable band, then the songs are notable. All three of these songs have been covered by some very notable bands. So why are you trying to delete them? Dream Focus 21:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It actually says "... have been performed independently by several notable artists", not "a notable band". Also, most of the covers indicated are on Black Sabbath tribute albums (and I can't find evidence of AC/DC covering this song either). Black Kite 21:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which policy says "covered, but not on tribute albums"? Is it the same that also says "delete and recreate the pages as redirects, so that those suckers can not merge the content to the target page"? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 21:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Covers on a tribute album are hardly "independent", are they? Oh, and nice failure to assume good faith there, so I'll respond in kind. The policy that says delete is the one where consensus is decided at AfD, and the guideline that says they should be recreated as redirects is WP:NSONGS. But if someone else wants to close this as redirect, merge, keep or anything else I really couldn't give a shit any more, because I'm sick of the disruptive wikilawyering round AfD that's being orchestrated by a few users. Black Kite 22:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I always understood "independent" as "independent from the original artist". So if Ozzy plays "Paranoid" it is not independent from Sabbath. But if Metallica, Megadeth and AC/DC cover several songs for a tribute album it is independent. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe not. And as mentioned before, and reverted by you: Why delete and recreate a page if not to prevent a merge of the content? Protecting the page after redirecting would have been enough. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 22:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Category