Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of band theme songs

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, OR. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of band theme songs

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

How has this stayed for all these years? The list is highly objectionable, and no sources are cited. A classic case of WP:OR. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 01:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - so place a tag on it requesting sources. The list is easy to define. Is it the band's theme song? Yes or no. There's no ambiguity. Kingturtle (talk) 04:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But what defines a "theme song?" I don't see any resemblance of a theme (of the band) in "Whiplash" by Metallica, "Helena" by My Chemical Romance, and "Droppin' Plates" by Disturbed to name a few. Most of the songs are just a title of the band, or very close to the title of the band. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 05:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The examples you provide should be removed from the list. Kingturtle (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable as founding member of 3 Inches of Blood. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 18:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC) My mistake, entered in error. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has been many weeks now. Shall we leave the article be? Kingturtle (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Change to Delete as entirely OR. No verifiable claims of a notable topic. ~~Add tags for context and sources because I don't know what defines a band's theme song, either. Can revisit if no improvement.~~ An administrator needs to fix this though. This was nominated on September 24 but was added to an archived AFD discussion for September 9. There's a second AFD by the same nominator as well added a few days later. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 September 9 --Wolfer68 (talk) 20:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 19:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relister's comment: This discussion was improperly placed on the September 9 log rather then the 24th, so I have relisted so it can be viewed by more editors. --JForget 19:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Stale article from Wikipedia's days when they would take anything. Not just original research, but very badly done original research. When I saw the title, I thought it was about the "Big Bands" from pre-rock 'n roll days, and those bands actually did have their own signature tunes. This appears to be a list of self-referencing songs, where a band has cut a (generally) obscure song that mentions the band's name. "One hit wonders" might have a song that they're obligated to perform 40 years later at the county fair, but most bands are too cool to play a "theme song" about themselves in a concert. The fact that most of these aren't blue links ought to be a clue. Mandsford (talk) 20:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Stale is not a legitimate criteria for deletion. And who are this they that you speak of? And no, they (whoever they are) didn't "take anything." Kingturtle (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but unsourced, badly done original research is a criterion, and this is from bygone days when mentioning where you got the information was optional. I wish I had been on Wikipedia in 2004, when people didn't take it seriously, and there were lots of creative articles, and it was more fun. By the time I came around in 2007, "they" had built up "their" article base and "they" put in a deletion forum to start questioning what used to get taken for granted. I got slapped down the first time I ever had a creative idea for an article; if I'd posted it a few years sooner, it would probably be up still yet. Now, Wikipedia is the first place anyone looks for information, it worries more about the reliable and verfiable thing than it used to, and it's not as freewheeling as it was five years ago. In both cases, whether we're talking about 2004 or 2009, "they" refers to the Wikipedia communitiy in general. For better or worse, "They don't make 'em like they used to". Mandsford (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then give the article a citation tag and give it time to be updated properly. There is no need to delete it when simple hard work can improve it. Kingturtle (talk) 18:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm of two minds. On the one hand if there was an article on Band theme songs this would seem like a reasonable complement to it (assuming only notable, reliably sourced entries were included). However there isn't and despite the fact I would have imagined band theme songs to be a reasonably established concept I cannot find any sources that could be practically used to support such an article. Guest9999 (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Surely there's some cleanup to be done, and indeed some excision for dubious entries (Why is "Short Skirt/Long Jacket" Cake's "anthem"? Or "Where the Streets Have No Name" for U2? "Dance Dance" for Fall Out Boy?). But this isn't outright original research, as there is ample material out there on self-identifying songs. Chubbles (talk) 21:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is really based on people's subjective opinions. The term "theme song" is also not defined in this context so we can tell if these are really theme songs of the bands listed. Northwestgnome (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete How do we define "theme songs"? Just because a source is found doesn't make it one (conflicting sources and all). Rather than have a giant list of opinions, delete the poorly defined list. Bfigura ^(talk) 03:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as subjective waffle on a bunch of B-listers. I agree with Northwestgnome, the lack of definitions, sources and objectivity means it's hard to see why this should stay. Eddie.willers (talk) 21:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR, also per WP:V as there isn't a citation in the list. Also per Mandsford's assessment of our growing reliability and the inherant subjectivity of what constitutes a theme song. Them From Space 23:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While I understand this concept as applied to, say, "(Theme from) The Monkees", I would prefer to see some kind of sourcing to establish that this concept has been recognized outside Wikipedia, to avoid original research. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am recommending a delete due to the continuing problem of original research. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - What exactly is the "continuing problem"? The "problem" has only just been raised. Shouldn't you give the article some time to respond to the request for citations? Kingturtle (talk) 12:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Appears to violate WP:OR, until some sources are added backing up the article's claims. With so many supposed theme songs I should think there would be at least a few references given. Assuming sources exist stating that certain bands have "theme songs" it would be better to recreate this article from scratch and document those claims. Narthring (talk • contribs) 05:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then tag it with a request for Citations rather than deleting the entire thing. Kingturtle (talk) 18:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support a userfy. I recognize that you started this as a straightforward list of self-referencing songs, and somewhere along the way it was edited to refer to these as "theme songs", which some persons would consider as a famous song that typifies a band (hence someone's addition of Where the Streets Have No Name for U-2). I recall something like that in The Book of Rock Lists (Simon & Schuster, 1994). It can be an encyclopedic topic; there are some very well-known songs that were recorded when a band plateaued out on their climb to fame. An example is the Beatles' Glass Onion (the Ballad of John and Yoko would be an alternative). Another is Cover of the Rolling Stone. It isn't always obvious-- I didn't know that the Creeque Alley was the name of the Mamas and the Papas song that has the refrain "and nobody's getting fat except Mama Cass". But speaking of fat, there's plenty that can be trimmed from this list. I'd volunteer to assist in straightening this up. Mandsford (talk) 21:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR. There's no real way to define a band's "theme song". I also agree that it is hard to see why this should stay. talkingbirds 14:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, but there *is* a real way to define it. Just use published lists and definitions. It isn't our responsibility to define it. It is only our responsibility to find the sources. Kingturtle (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - But if the sources cannot be found in the first place, then we can't verify anything on the list. If we can find sources that can verify some/all of these theme songs, then I would love to keep this list. talking birds 16:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If sources cannot be found, the challenged material can be removed, which could result in a blank article. The creator of the article (or some other interested party) should really add some sources as soon as possible to make this list worth saving at all. It's an interesting list but requires defining, such as what is the difference between a theme song and a signature song? A little more context would be helpful. --Wolfer68 (talk) 19:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under what basis are either of you supporting your claim that "If sources cannot be found"? No one has even started looking for sources yet. Kingturtle (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you created an article without having any sources to go by and that you don't know even exist and expect them to magically appear through other wikipedians research? This just screams OR then. --Wolfer68 (talk) 21:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article because some bands have theme songs. And the topic is of interest to some people. Sources were not part of the puzzle at the time. Now they are. It is quite simple to find sources. So why not just tag the article with a request for citations? Kingturtle (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"It is quite simple to find sources." And yet in 5½ years, you haven't come up with one? --Wolfer68 (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't been asked. That's what the Citation tags do...they ask :) Kingturtle (talk) 23:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. But you've been aware of a citation issue since September 24 when this was added to the AFD discussion. I haven't done well finding any sources online, so please, as someone who wants to save this article, add even one or two. It's quite simple, right? --Wolfer68 (talk) 16:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been busy with many things and haven't had time to find sources. What they Citation tag does is gives the article some time to get up to par. I won't necessarily be able to dig up citations this week (I'm in the midst of a PhD process), but I know during some breaks (like Thanksgiving and Xmas) I will have that sort of time. Kingturtle (talk) 17:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest making a copy of this article in your userspace and, when you have the time to look for sources, edit that copy. Assuming this article is deleted you can then recreate the article with enough citation to satisfy notability and verifiability. Adding a citation tag to the article would have been good, but since it is up for deletion I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a few sources to demonstrate that the article isn't original research. I think most editors that see an article that makes this many claims and has no resources listed will consider it original research. Narthring (talk • contribs) 02:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is my experience that editors who encounter articles without sources place a tag atop the article requesting citations. That's the AGF way to proceed. Kingturtle (talk) 02:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My initial objection was, in retrospect, over nothing more than the name of the article, which is not a very good reason for deleting it. I think many of us who have said "delete" have had the initial reaction: (a) This says it is about "theme songs" (b) This was not what I was expecting and (c) This cannot be fixed. Since theme song is an ambiguous term, and since many of us tend to associate that term with the opening music of a television show (i.e., "Boss of Me" being the theme for "Malcolm in the Middle"), a more appropriate name should be affixed to it. The common thread in the delete !votes is the lack of a definition of the word used in the title of the article, and I'm not in favor of deleting an article for its title-- nor, for that matter, for keeping a bad title at the expense of losing what can be a good article. Scrap the title, edit and source the content. Mandsford (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem isn't just the name, rather the whole idea. The content is a list of songs "which identifies the band's key sound and image, as well as describing itself". I simply don't see a way to generate that list while sticking within NOR and V. Even if every item was sourced, we would essentially have a sprawling unending list composed of varied opinions from a range of music critics as tho what songs best identified a band's sound and image. --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)--Bfigura ^(talk) 21:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:OR. Reywas92 ^Talk 23:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question What is the difference between original research and lack of citations? Kingturtle (talk) 03:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've been a Wikipedian longer than I, so I'm taking this as a rhetorical question. I guess my answer would be that if there are no citations, there tends to be a presumption that it's original research -- i.e., a fact is drawn from one's own memory or judgment, rather than from a source that one can point to. I agree that what some would call O.R. is what others would call "common sense", for example "Hey hey, we're the Monkees!" would be an opening line one would expect to have been intended as a self-reference by The Monkees. My feeling is that the article, as you originally intended it, was to start a list of those type of songs. Back in 2005, it wasn't uncommon to start a list and to add the invitation for others to contribute to it; and, as part of the encouragement to others, to not remove someone else's addition. For better or for worse, the trend now is toward making articles cite their sources, or at least get a start on it. My observations are that (1) There are, indeed, deletionists who live for the thrill of nominating an article the moment it gets posted, or to root out a long standing article; (2) There are, indeed, inclusionists who will fight to keep an article that is sourced, or that can be (put another way, they live for the thrill of rescuing an article); and (3) That some articles can't be fixed immediately (we all live in the real world and our spare time is limited), and when that's the case, it's better to move the topic to user space so that some fixes can be made. Everybody here, whether we call them a deletionist, inclusionist or neutral, has a goal of improving Wikipedia. Mandsford (talk) 14:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My question actually is not rhetorical. Thousands of Wikipedia articles have been tagged by users with {{Unreferenced}}, allowing time for the article to come up to par. I honestly don't understand why that solution doesn't apply to this case. Kingturtle (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may well be that people are skeptical that a reference tag will lead to any action, particularly with a list article. Using the ctrl + F to search how many of those tagged articles are lists, the count was 36 of the first 5,000 and 73 of the next 5,000. I'd prefer to see it userfied and worked on, then to take the chance that it won't be deleted. I'm not sure how much longer we have until an administrator makes that decision. Mandsford (talk) 18:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy to Kingturtle's userspace. Since the creating editor states the citations can be improved and more time is needed I see no problem with sending the list to userspace in the hope it will be improved and recreated in the mainspace. Narthring (talk • contribs) 18:40, 4 November 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.