Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killing Yourself to Live

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 March 15.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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

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:

Delete the lot, fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: non-notable non-charting songs. JamesBurns (talk) 09:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. per nom. Note: There are other Black Sabbath songs that could have been added to this afd list. Perhaps it should be expanded to include the rest? Fair Deal (talk) 10:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a lot of songs. I didn't have time to get them all this time around. Maybe I'll create another more comprehensive AfD later. Enigma^msg 16:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 00:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's always pita to have "combined" AfDs. What might begin with some sort of laziness will soon evolve into a real mess. About all Sabbath songs from the first four or five albums have been covered by lots of notable artists, Biohazard being one of them. Does nobody have some secondary literature to expand the articles? "After Forever (song)" has been released as a single and was inspiration to at least two bands' respective names (not to mention the cover versions). "Killing Yourself to Live" was released as a single by another band and inspired Chuck Klosterman's book of the same name. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 00:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean "pity" not pita. It wasn't laziness. I'm perfectly willing to create individual AfDs on every single NN song I find, but it seems a waste of space when I can combine them into one AfD. If you don't like combined/bundled AfDs, this is not the place to rail against them. Enigma^msg 00:32, 16 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-hexa Chord ² 06:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The generally accepted way would be PITA. Enigma^msg 20:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you then, I'm still learning English. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 21:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, per WP:NSONGS. Canniba loki 00:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete all non-notable album tracks. Wether B (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the relevant album articles, as the WP:NSONGS section people are linking to suggests. These are plausible search terms without sufficient sourced information to warrant separate articles. ~ mazca ^t|c 01:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Master of Reality, liberally {{Cn}}-tagging unsourced information, on the grounds that one good album article beats 8 song stubs, and maintenance (such as sourcing) will be easier. Precedent: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Fountain of Salmacis(Genesis song) [sic]. I did this with Black Sabbath Vol. 4 (and those Genesis songs), and I think Master of Reality, at 9,855 bytes, could benefit from this treatment. If a Merge is agreed upon, I'd be happy to perform the operation.
(Incidentally, a restore of the deleted Lord of This World article would be helpful for such a merge, even if only so I can confirm it has no salvageable information.) / edg ☺ ☭ 01:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "After Forever". It was released as a single by an extremly notible band Black Sabbath. It was covered by another notable band Biohazard, who also produced a video of the song. I also think it is bad form and precedent to nominate three articles under one umbrella nomination. BTW Merge "Solitude" with Master of Reality and Merge "Killing Yourself to Live" with Sabbath Bloody Sabbath (although the fact that is was covered by Anal Cunt, alone should warrent it having its own page).-J04n (talk) 04:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The band's notability does not transfer automatically to every one of their songs. Being covered a few times is also not sufficient to base an article. I would suggest a redirect to the article page, with cover information noted there. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article is nominated in Wikipedia:Mergers for discussion. / edg ☺ ☭ 03:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are plenty of Black Sabbath songs that merit inclusion. These do not. Captain panda 04:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - non-notable album tracks. JoannaMinogue (talk) 08:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP After Forever & delete the other 2. "After Forever" is a single from 1971 (...), it has a source coverage so it passes the criteria. The other 2 articles do not pass. Nominators should inform themselves before they nominate.-- LYKANTROP ✉ 10:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, album tracks that aren't notable. TheClashFan (talk) 07:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete all I believe that the AF single is a pirate release and not a legit issue. I would also add that the song Black Sabbath should have been added to this AFD along with a few non-single tracks from later releases. Another AfD in the waiting. The Real Libs-speak politely 11:36, 15 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-hexa Chord ² 18:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. http://www.covertrek.com/findArtist.html list the cover bands that have covered various songs of them. Killing Yourself To Live was covered by AC/DC. The band Cathedral has covered the song Solitude. Dream Focus 12:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After Forever, Killing Yourself to Live and just in case: Black Sabbath, Sabbath Bloody Sabbath... "Solitude" is the name of several songs, the Sabbath song can be found easily following the links.--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 12:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Solitude (song) I've added some reasonable refs thanks Thruxton (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Album tracks that won no awards or were listed on any charts and there are no reliable sources establishing any additional notability. Fails WP:NSONGS.--Sloane (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - see also Wikipedia:Mergers for discussion/Killing Yourself to Live. I closed this AfD as Delete & Redirect, but have re-opened it as I closed it 24h early by mistake. Black Kite 20:58, 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-hexa Chord ² 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-hexa Chord ² 22:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable album track. Bastique ^demandez 22:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Which one of the three? --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 22:17, 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.