Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zuckerman's Famous Pig

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 merge to Charlotte's Web (1973 film). MBisanz ^talk 02:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zuckerman's Famous Pig[edit]

Delete - no reliable sources indicate that the song has any notability independent of the film. PROD was removed by editor stating that because the book is notable the song "might be" notable too, but this is not the standard for notability and the editor should certainly be aware that notability is not inherited. Otto4711 (talk) 02:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I concur with the reasoning of the Nom. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as there is no independent notability. Tavix (talk) 03:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep It seems to me that given the importance of the original work, and the use of the song is subsequent works would mean there were sources likely to be found, and thus a community discussion was appropriate. I myself cannot competently do the checking. DGG (talk) 04:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article fails to establish notability, as per WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 08:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Charlotte's Web (1973 film). There's plenty of useful information that would be a shame to lose. --JD554 (talk) 10:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per JD554. Note also that an article has been created for each of the songs from the film, and most (did not check 'em all) have been proposed for deletion. All of these articles should share a common fate, one way or 'tother. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely unnotable song. Article is unsourced, and any "new" information in it is unverifiable. Should be deleted like two of the "bigger" songs have already been. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:34, 27 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, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added a variety of sources to the article and cleaned it up. The title is clearly notable in several respects and so, per WP:BEFORE, deletion is not appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are significant coverage, nor that relevant. Two only verify that the song exists and is used in the film, something that doesn't even NEED sourcing. None are specific (lacking page numbers), and the other two are not significant coverage, but only pass by mentions. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 09:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of this addresses the points of WP:BEFORE. This is clearly not a "hopeless case" and so should not have been brought to AFD. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If none of the sources provide significant coverage of the topic (ie "Zuckerman's Famous Pig") as per the general notability guidelines, then I would say it is a hopeless case. --JD554 (talk) 10:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment contradicts your opinion above where you indicate that the article should not be deleted. There you suggest that the content be merged. The difficulty is that there are mutliple possible targets. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I don't think the topic is notable and therefore anything that is salvagable from the article, such as writer etc should be added to the main article. I see no contradiction there. Anything noteworthy that isn't relevant to the film would be added to the relevant article, such as The Brady Kids cover being mentioned in that article. But that's all I can see. --JD554 (talk) 10:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep article and sources establish some notability outside of the original film. JuJube (talk) 01:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per decent improvement by Colonel Warden. GlassCobra 02:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm sorry, but the sources provided do not establish independent notability for the song. The first source mentions the phrase as part of the plot of the book Charlotte's Web for what appears to be an explication of Kubler-Ross's five stages of grief. It does not provide any coverage of the song as it draws its reference from the phrase's appearance in the novel, not the song's existence in the film. The second source is nothing but a track listing. Does not cover the song in any substantive fashion. The third source merely mentions that the Brady Kids recorded it and does not discuss the song in a substantive fashion. The fourth source is a dedication of a novel (which is also dedicated to "Hayao, Jesus, Akira" and the men who shaped the author and the woman who said the author was her favorite. No discussion of the song at all and no evidence that it is a reference to the song and not the phrase from the novel. Per notability guidelines notability is established by "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Single-sentence mentions are not significant coverage, as also established by notability guidelines: "The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy", The Guardian.) is plainly trivial." Four plainly trivial mentions, two of which are likely not about the song at all, do not and cannot establish notability. Find sources that are about the song in a significant manner. Otto4711 (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Smerge Fails the GNG. Also would arguably fail the proposed WP:FICT, though it would be pretty close. Protonk (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The song receives its notability from the film and is not independently notable. --Stormbay (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Colonel Warden's input (I would treat him to a pulled pork sandwich, but that might be construed as inappropriate). Ecoleetage (talk) 04:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And your response to the fact that the so-called "sources" he used are trivial one-sentence mentions, some of which do not refer to the song at all but instead the novel, which are the sort of mentions that WP:N specifically excludes as establishing notability, would be what exactly? Otto4711 (talk) 12:08, 6 January 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.