Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ambitionz az a Ridah
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 redirect to All Eyez on Me. MBisanz talk 00:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ambitionz az a Ridah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable song, fails WP:MUSIC, and it doesn't even have its own single. Suggest deletion. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to All Eyez on Me. Non-notable song, per WP:MUSIC#SONGS. I wouldn't have gone out of my way to create a redirect on this non-single, but redirects are cheap and generally useful, so why not. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No Delete, no Redirect. I have included (since the deletion proposal) an entire section on the songs popularity, another on how it has influenced other hip-hop artists in naming songs and albums, and added references. Wikipedia:Notability (music) states that "Songs... that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." Also, "there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article." I know its not a single, but my article has grown well beyond a stub, is longer than most (about 99%) of the song articles on Wikipedia (singles or otherwise). Matter of fact, most articles I see about singles are "unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs," and Wikipedia:Notability (music) states that these should be deleted, redirected, or merged. --Wakamusha (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - At the moment, those edits give us the following cited additions: 1) there was a video for the song (though the site cited is likely a copyright violation), 2) the song mentions "Tyson". IMO, we need more than that. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Needed citations added. -Wakamusha (talk) 09:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - At the moment, those edits give us the following cited additions: 1) there was a video for the song (though the site cited is likely a copyright violation), 2) the song mentions "Tyson". IMO, we need more than that. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This one is borderline at best. The entire opening is a set of overly large quotations and the song was never even a single. I think it should either be deleted, or merged with a relevant article. Undead Warrior (talk) 00:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The song may not have been a single, but it was later made into a video, as well as several remixes. Very notable, in fact, for a song to never be a single and spawn so much influence. I still say No Delete. -Wakamusha (talk) 23:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: question still remains over its notability. If anything is of value it should be merged otherwise it fails WP:MUSIC#SONGS. JamesBurns (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're going to be a parrot, I'll be one too. The song may not have been a single, but it was later made into a video, as well as several remixes. Very notable, in fact, for a song to never be a single and spawn so much influence. I still say No Delete. -Wakamusha (talk) 23:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability
[edit]Facts:
- First song he wrote after being released from prison (hours after, in fact). Quoted and sourced.
- Song has a VIDEO (sourced).
- Song has a REMIX (sourced).
- (At least) Two prominent artists have used the beat for their own major label releases in recent years (both sourced).
For my final words, I'll also state again that the article is a lot longer than most articles for songs that do have singles. I now leave the rest to the powers that be. -Wakamusha (talk) 23:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This may be, but that still does not pass WP:MUSIC#SONGS. Releasing a song after being released from prison does not matter. Nor does a video. Nor does a remix. Undead Warrior (talk) 01:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But what about other artists using the beat? Reusing a beat in Hip-Hop is essentially an independent performance, and WP:MUSIC#SONGS states that if a song has "been performed independently by several notable artists," then it is "probably notable." There is also definitely "enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article," as most song articles never "grow beyond stubs," which this one already has. -Wakamusha (talk) 18:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sampling is very common, so what? That doesn't mean this article is automatically notable. There are more influential songs that are actually singles, like, "The Message", "Boyz-n-the-Hood", "Nuthin' but a "G" Thang", "Just a Friend", "Computer Love" and "Ventura Highway". Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Sampling" the entire beat of a song, plus using the same rhyme scheme, as well as repeating several bars from the origional song, is a little more than a sample. It is basically a reinterperetaion of the origional by an artist, and in this case, at least two prominent artists. -Wakamusha (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sampling is very common, so what? That doesn't mean this article is automatically notable. There are more influential songs that are actually singles, like, "The Message", "Boyz-n-the-Hood", "Nuthin' but a "G" Thang", "Just a Friend", "Computer Love" and "Ventura Highway". Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But what about other artists using the beat? Reusing a beat in Hip-Hop is essentially an independent performance, and WP:MUSIC#SONGS states that if a song has "been performed independently by several notable artists," then it is "probably notable." There is also definitely "enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article," as most song articles never "grow beyond stubs," which this one already has. -Wakamusha (talk) 18:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That does not matter though. A song is not notable if someone sampled it or re-made it. If the remix does good, and recieves attention, then the remix is notable. The original still will not be though. Undead Warrior (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So what you are saying is to specifically ignore WP:MUSIC#SONGS in that a song that has "been performed independently by several notable artists" is notable? If you have a problem with that statement, then the concensus you are trying to reach is a change of the section WP:MUSIC#SONGS, not deletion of Ambitionz Az a Ridah. Happy to redirect you to where you want to be, no problem. We all make mistakes. -Wakamusha (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That does not matter though. A song is not notable if someone sampled it or re-made it. If the remix does good, and recieves attention, then the remix is notable. The original still will not be though. Undead Warrior (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2008 (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.