Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hitsville U.K.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 18:15, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Another "X is a song by Y" article, this time about a genuinely unnotable song. If we're going to have an "article" about "Hitsville U.K." we might as well have an "article" on every song ever recorded. This one wasn't even a single. Even the new template tells is nothing worthwhile. "The Magnificent Seven (song)" has also been created in much the same way, but I won't VfD that (at least not now) because it might at least pass notability requirements, though it needs, to say the least, addition of content. And just to make my vote clear here: delete. -R. fiend 05:43, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, bad precedent, an attempt to create an article for every song of that Clash album - notable or not. Megan1967 08:20, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I'm assuming this was just an album track. If any actual content shows up, merge it with the album. Kappa 10:04, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Article says absolutely nothing. The album article is not yet big enough to split off articles on individual songs. Trilobite (Talk) 10:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete until there is something more to say about it than that it is the second track of an album. I hope there aren't articles for all the tracks on the album. --BM 16:41, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I hate The Clash. I hate people who say they like The Clash. The same people instinctively say they like Bob Marley and Beethoven, because they want people to think kindly of them; but I alone know their game, I can see through their disguise of lies, their pies. I hate triple albums. I hate words which end in -ville. I hate Seville, for example, filthy town. I also hate people who say they like a certain band's second-best album, because they think that if they say they like that band's best album, people will think that they are shallow, but at the same time they don't want to pick something too unusual because they don't want to lose the audience. 'Hitsville UK' was a single from 'Sandinista', the Clash's most reviled and longest album, and it sold no copies and meant nothing to anybody and didn't change anybody's opinion about anything, certainly not my opinion about The Clash, who I hate. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that I hate the socio-medial crust which has built up around the Clash. With my vote here, I will destroy this crust. -Ashley Pomeroy 21:04, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I'm no huge fan of Bob Marley anyway. Oh, and Hitsville UK wasn't a single (I'm pretty sure). -R. fiend 21:07, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Gosh, Ashley, don't beat around the bush. Why don't just come right out and admit that you hate the Clash and this album? --BM 22:33, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- There's a scan of the 7" cover here, [1] and according to 'The Clash' on Everything2 it got to number 56 in July 1981. I've got nothing against Bob Marley, mind, it's just that I can't stand people who say that they like him. -Ashley Pomeroy 22:43, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- My mistake then. I guess it was a single. This further confirms my theory that bands often release many of their worst songs as singles. Why is that? Anyway, I still don't think this qualifies as a terribly noteworthy song. I'm a Clash fan, many of my friends are Clash fans, and none of us have ever paid this song any notice. Just 4 mintues and 21 seconds to get through between The Magnicifent Seven and Junco Partner. -R. fiend 23:09, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- There's a scan of the 7" cover here, [1] and according to 'The Clash' on Everything2 it got to number 56 in July 1981. I've got nothing against Bob Marley, mind, it's just that I can't stand people who say that they like him. -Ashley Pomeroy 22:43, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment I've never heard this song, but was this song possibly named after/inspired by Hitsville U.S.A.? If so, maybe it deserves a keep and the mention. --b. Touch 22:38, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I think there is a connection in title, but not much in content. Sure, something could be said to that effect, but seeing as how you figured that out without even having heard the song it's hardly a terribly important fact. -R. fiend 23:49, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Yes people like me who've never heard of hitsville u.s.a can remain in blissful ignorance. Kappa 09:52, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I think there is a connection in title, but not much in content. Sure, something could be said to that effect, but seeing as how you figured that out without even having heard the song it's hardly a terribly important fact. -R. fiend 23:49, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: nonnotable song. Songs by notable bands are not inherently notable. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:45, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - stupidity on my part. It is not very notable and unless the page begins to include the meaning of the song and its relevance (like the Washington Bullets page) then it should be deleted. I was not thinking in the creation of this page about notability as I should have been. gren 03:03, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Putting my serious hat back on, and about 'the meaning of the song and its relevance', which struck me as I edited bits of the Sex Pistols' God Save the Queen, and the thought which comes to my mind is that even if we write 'many people consider that the song is about X' or 'the third line of the second verse is probably a reference to Y', well we can't do that, can we? Because it would be original research; the editorial voice is asserting something to be so. We can only quote external sources, sources of merit and substance, which makes it dashed hard to write articles about pop songs. Even if the song semi-explicitly makes reference to a specific event, such as Smoke on the Water for example, we still have to cite sources. In fact, Smoke on the Water itself is unacceptable in its current form, because it has no sources, has lots of bald statements, and uses value judgements all over the place ("despite the heaviness of the guitar part, constant movement and interplay within the supporting parts keeps the feel of the song from becoming leaden"). And it doesn't have any useful chart information, only something about a chart in America, a foreign market. -Ashley Pomeroy 22:58, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Overall I'm tempted to give a little leeway in articles on songs in terms of what qualifies as "original research". It's well known that many songs are widely rumored to have certain meanings (true or not), that are almost universally known. Citing rumors can be difficult, at times impossible. We can't really have "that guy I was talking to in the cafeteria in my high school" as a source. Even posts on messageboards, which can be linked to, are hardly the sort of sources you'd want to include in an encyclopedia. Certainly just about everyone knows the rumor behind the Phil Collins song "In the Air Tonight", about the guy drowning and the other guy not doing anything to help. It's completley bogus, but it's such a common rumor that any article on the song would have to mention it, and I'm not exactly sure what one would use as a source. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples much like this. That's not to say we should open up the floor to any crank to write about what he thinks any given song is about (I once tried to convince a friend that the Franz Ferdinand song "The Dark of the Matinee" was about Lee Harvey Oswald, but I certainly wouldn't write that here, nor do I believe it). Well, that's my two cents anyway. -R. fiend 23:34, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Putting my serious hat back on, and about 'the meaning of the song and its relevance', which struck me as I edited bits of the Sex Pistols' God Save the Queen, and the thought which comes to my mind is that even if we write 'many people consider that the song is about X' or 'the third line of the second verse is probably a reference to Y', well we can't do that, can we? Because it would be original research; the editorial voice is asserting something to be so. We can only quote external sources, sources of merit and substance, which makes it dashed hard to write articles about pop songs. Even if the song semi-explicitly makes reference to a specific event, such as Smoke on the Water for example, we still have to cite sources. In fact, Smoke on the Water itself is unacceptable in its current form, because it has no sources, has lots of bald statements, and uses value judgements all over the place ("despite the heaviness of the guitar part, constant movement and interplay within the supporting parts keeps the feel of the song from becoming leaden"). And it doesn't have any useful chart information, only something about a chart in America, a foreign market. -Ashley Pomeroy 22:58, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Strong keep, a totally notable song. Everyking 06:22, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, spurious notability. JamesBurns 10:13, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.