Talk:Flush (Brian Welch song)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contested Deletion Debate[edit]

It's different because the article is substantially different and the content is more verifiable. The consensus last time was that we should re-create the article when the song was released and had information that was verifiable. The song has been released, and the article is substantially different, few of the same contents remain, and the ones that do are now verified because the song has been released.

  • The song has been released, making it verifiable
  • Head has commented on the meaning
  • A music video is in the works
  • The song has received airplay
  • It's a single, not a song, so the guideline for songs doesn't apply
  • It has references

And lastly, I'll re-iterate that the song HAS been released.

dude527 (talk) 15:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the AfD was "The result was delete. If it does chart, let me know and I'll restore the article. Wizardman 17:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)" not "...re-create the article when the song was released and had information that was verifiable."
  • It is certainly verifiable that the song has been released, but that is not the issue, nor does it satisfy notability.
  • That the band has commented on the meaning of the song does not establish notability.
  • The existance of a video does not establish notability.
  • Receiving airplay does not establish notability.
  • "It's a single, not a song" is an issue to take up at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music) or the Villiage Pump. )Anyway, the article, Flush (Head song), is clearly about a song: the track listing for this "single-that-is-not-the-song-of-the-same-name" is "1. Flush - 4:44", the video is clearly for the song, the "single-not-the-song" is a digital download wholely indistinguishable from a download of a "song", etc.)
  • The references are: the artist's own page (no notability there), top40-charts.com gives no indication that the site is a reliable source and a link for the video.
Reliability for a song has brightline parameters: did it chart? (no), did it win significant awards? (no), has it been performed independently by several notable artists? (no).
Your argument is, essentially, that WP:MUSIC gives criteria for albums to be notable but does not give criteria for the more numerous "singles". I see no evidence of that intent in WP:MUSIC. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to all that you just told me, your reason for speedy deletion is not valid. The reason cited was that it was identical to the article that was deleted before, so I gave reasons how it was not identical. Fix the speedy deletion banner to show the real reason it should be deleted, then, because the content in this article is not identical. Now give me a few hours while I come up with an argument, please. Thanks. dude527 (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a quote from WP:MUSIC#SONGS: "A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." I find that the article is completely verifiable and detailed enough... Now to find a notable aspect of it... I'll be back, this isn't my full argument. dude527 (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not identical to the deleted version, it is substantially identical, i.e., it is identical in substance: "is substantially identical to the deleted version, and any changes do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted." The changes do not address the reasons for deletion: that the article does not meet WP:MUSIC#SONGS. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, help me out a little bit here, what exactly does that mean? How can I address those reasons? I'm guessing by providing evidence of notability? dude527 (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons for deletion, as spelled out at the AfD:

  • "Fails WP:MUSIC#SONGS."
  • "Delete per nom" (nom was "Fails WP:MUSIC#SONGS.)"
  • "Fails WP:MUSIC#SONGS."
  • "Delete per nom & WP:FUTURE ... Recreate it after it is notable, if it becomes so."
  • "does not meet ... WP:MUSIC#SONG"

So, the task is to show that the song is notable, per WP:MUSIC#SONGS. At the moment, it isn't. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slowly, I'm coming up with an effective argument. Should hopefully be ready soon. dude527 (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete the article yet, there's a discussion as to whether judging this single by WP:MUSIC#SONGS is valid over WP:MUSIC#ALBUMS, to any admin, or anybody who wants to participate. dude527 (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

This single so far fails WP:MUSIC#SONGS, but it was released as a CD as the Cornerstone Festival, and it will be sold as a physical CD copy at Head's next few shows too. The CD copy, from what I understand, contains both Flush, and the radio edit. But, if it's a CD, and it's been released publicly as such, then the standard it should be judged by is WP:MUSIC#ALBUMS, and, because the song was performed and written by Brian Welch, a notable artist, the single is, in turn, notable. There's your notability, tag removed. dude527 (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A CD with two versions of the same song is not an album. No radio station playing the radio edit of "Flush" will identify it as being "...from the album Flush (CD single)". They'll say it's "...from the album Save Me From Myself". In fact, they might even saying they're playing the Head's new single, "Flush", then play one of the two versions, not both. If they say they'll be playing "Save Me From Myself", a rational person would expect that they would be playing the album, not a song from it. A single is not an album.
It seems you want to consider this single to be an "album" for the purpose of saving this article, or extending the debate until the song possibly charts. If so, here's a compromise: we redirect this article to Save Me From Myself. If/when the song charts, undo the redirect and add the chart info. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it should be identified as an actual album, I said it should be judged by those standards, as per the discussion page we had on notability. Shall I pull some quotes?
"I can't. I'm not a definitive authority. :) I myself would apply WP:MUSIC#ALBUMS to them." - Moonriddengirl
"That said, the current definition of notability for albums seems to me to be applicable to "singles" anyway, since it boils down pretty much to: "Is the band notable? Is there independent coverage? If yes to both, then an article may be appropriate, provided sufficient information to sustain a separate article exists." I would think when there is no physical release, you'd be discussing "promo-only", which by the album criteria is generally not notable." - Moondriddengirl
"As currently written, an album by a notable act is, by default, notable. If a single is a song, it falls under WP:MUSIC#SONGS and is, by default, not notable unless other conditions are met (i.e., it has charted, won a major award or been recorded by more than one notable act." -Mdsummersw
"If a single meets one of the album criteria, it's probably notable; if it meets one of the song criteria, it's also probably notable, I think." - Tuf-Kat
Technically, this single isn't just one song. I mean it's two versions of the same song, only one of which gets played on the actual radio. It's a multiple song single, with a physical copy, and a digital copy, and all that, by a notable artist. Not to be considered an album, but to be judged by those same standards. Do you see, though, why we need new standards for singles? Right now this discussion is going to go nowhere because you're judging singles by WP:MUSIC#SONGS, and I'm judging them by WP:MUSIC#ALBUMS, and Wikipedia doesn't have a middle ground, a definite place where which to judge singles by. Your argument is convincing, but I still have to say, I'd judge them by WP:MUSIC#ALBUMS, myself. Which gets us nowhere here. dude527 (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Webisode version[edit]

I think that the alternate version of the song in the webisode is notable. At least, I don't see how a known version of a song (especially a single) that differs from its final cut is explicitly not notable. How else would you describe a pre-release version of a song, that wouldn't be described as original research? You could say it's alternate. You could say it's early, or a demo. You could say it's "different," but knowing it isn't final would bring that description of it back to square one. So what would you prefer to call it? I honestly think if anything, calling it an "early" version would suffice. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 02:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's unverifiable, and thereby not notable. For all we know, it could be a completely different song altogether. It isn't likely, but it was never explicitly announced that there is a demo version, so we can't add it. WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." The Guy complain edits 02:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
His MySpace includes both an "Album version" and a "Radio edit". But I don't really think anything can be said without a source to verify the difference, etc. Blackngold29 02:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The album version and radio edit consist of the same song, only the puke intro is taken off of the radio edit. The Guy complain edits 02:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's the "Puke version"? It's the second track on the CD single. Blackngold29 02:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's the version that was sold on iTunes, but it's missing one riff in the bridge, which is why its only 4:21. (I have the CD version and iTunes version) The Guy complain edits 02:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Flush (Brian Welch song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flush_(Brian_Welch_song)&oldid=1202062376"