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 keep. OR problems can be addressed by editing but consensus is that this is a notable topic. SoWhy 14:59, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about animal rights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Article PRODded with reason "Huge amount of original research (see edit summary of article creator). Not a single source showing notability of the concept of "songs about animal rights". WP:INDISCRIMINATE.". Article dePRODded with reason: "remove prod". PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 20:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The topic passes WP:LISTN. Here's a selection of sources:

1. Animal Rights - A Beginner's Guide
2. From Donald Trump to animal rights - the jukebox which only plays protest songs
3. Story Behind the Protest Song
4. Sounds of Resistance: The Role of Music in Multicultural Activism
5. The Animals' Agenda
6. Moby meets DJ Mag USA to talk new music & animal rights
7. Meat is murder? Rockers go head to head over animal rights
8. Radicalism and Music

Andrew D. (talk) 22:14, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't see anything really addressing notability. We're already dealing with a WP:FRINGE topic, so one needs to be careful of unduly giving songs or the overall topic too much weight. This basically just looks like WP:OR/indiscriminate listing as Randykitty mentioned. Andrew above mentions sources without linking to anything, but those also look like cases of not really addressing the topic directly. As it stands, this list violates WP:NOTCATALOGUE policy. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the entire list, and most of the sources were actually junk sourced to blogs, facebook, etc. I even found an Angelfire website. I'm really concerned people below were saying the article is adequately sourced when a those low quality sources didn't even catch people's eyes. Even looking at the keep votes up to August 5, it doesn't look like anyone has been able to establish WP:NLIST in terms of treatment as a group. Most of the sources are either name dropping an individual song, or else broader discussion of animal rights groups using music without picking out important songs that would be useful for generating a list. We don't really get that level of discussion about the group as opposed to discussion of a broad genre more suitable for a non-list article. Even the remaining items have sourcing issues, but I already spent enough time cleaning out junky sources as it is. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're being a bit hasty mass-deleting sources, including a RS book on anarchy-punk culture and an interview with a large newspaper, along with almost the entire lede section. But note that even the entries you admit are mostly well-sourced constitute a sizable (>70) list. Also, it doesn't make sense to discuss the topic as a "broad genre", as the songs listed span a range of established genres from punk to folk to pop; what unifies them is just their subject matter. FourViolas (talk) 02:42, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources may be relaible, but those are just passing mentions/name-dropping the song. The subject matter doesn't appear to be covered generally, which fails WP:NLIST. SportingFlyer talk 02:45, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The lead-in already covers the topic significantly with several publications that indicate its importance in mainstream music[1], straight edge[2][3], anarcho punk,[4][5] alternative and pop music (this reference also describes its importance at live shows)[6] and Hispanic music.[7] The subject, animal rights, is what joins them all together, not the music genre. Regarding indiscriminate lists, they constitute "a collection of information gathered without care or making distinctions or in a thoughtless manner", the opposite of this list and the same reason why I included the "Themes" and "Language" columns since I started it. WP:NLIST was already established (see the message in the Template:Nowiki at the top of the list; one of its criteria says: "Only add songs made by artists with articles on the English Wikipedia") and since this nomination and FourViolas's proposal on the talk page, it's only restricted to reliable sources and not lyrics. The list is good compendium of songs of a notable and sourced topic, not a controversial issue, so WP:DUE is irrelevant; otherwise lists such as this one or this one should be limited to songs that had a profound impact or only those that have articles.

On the other hand, Kingofaces43's sweeping removal of sources included many articles by reliable sources: Los Angeles Times, Roadrunner Records, WBUR-FM, MTV, the official website of Attrition, Fender, and an interview in the ALF (which doesn't make part of the compilation of songs and comes from its press office) are among those that I found at a glance. He also removed others of animal rights organizations (like this detailed description of an anti-vivisection song by the artists themselves) which are valid per WP:BIASED. There was only one Facebook source (which is the official account of Conflict and accepted per WP:NOYT), and I was also extremely dubious of using the Angelfire link and the few blogs sourced (although some of them are officials' of notable authors)[8] but I only added the ones with interviews to the artists, and almost always with the Template:Nowiki indicating reliable sources that link to them. I will try not to use them again, and I'm looking for reliable sources for all the entries that need them. Ojo del tigre (talk) 08:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're trying to argue for list inclusion now, not list group notability, so your comment above mostly doesn't belong in this AfD. That being said, songs and references I removed only gave passing mention to the song with essentially namedrops or were not independent (interviews generally do not contribute to DUE and didn't even meet the criteria you created for inclusion). Also, no editor should reasonably consider a terrorist group like ALF to be a "reliable enough", and PETA really has no place in due weight discussions both because of independence and WP:FRINGE. For this AfD though, your NLIST claim is circular logic and in opposition to WP:INHERIT. That is assessed by notability of the group or set of objects. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:LISTN (not WP:NLIST, confusingly) requires assessment of whether the group or set of animal rights-related songs has been addressed as such in RS. That's exactly what Ojo is demonstrating: it has, and repeatedly, by scholarly sources with a range of genre-specific emphases as well as at full generality. FourViolas (talk) 13:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't blatantly misrepresent editors. I was very clear that I was removing the very "low-hanging" sources that were pretty much unquestionably not appropriate for inclusion and that the remaining sources needed a second pass through. Either way, editors need to stop blanket edit warring the content in after that initial cleanup. As for genre, they can be cross-categorizations. The point is that the topic of music in animal rights may be notable in sources, but notability hasn't really been established for the group or set of songs. The latter is the requirement for this AfD. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You did say you were doing that, but then you also removed a bunch of sources that were clearly appropriate. That's not a misrepresentation. Per BRD, it's your responsibility to defend the bold move of deleting 60,000 bytes of sourced information rather than edit warring.my mistake, WP:BURDEN trumps here.13:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be admitting that there are plenty of RS discussing animal rights-related songs as a "topic" (including naming and discussing particular songs, making "top ten" lists, etc.), but arguing that we must delete the article because no source has picked out the exact set of songs currently in the list for discussion. But that's just the observation that this is a dynamic list, and that hardly justifies deletion. You could just as well say that we should delete the featured lists List of University of Waterloo people or List of English words containing Q not followed by U because, while there are sources establishing the notability of the "topic", nobody has published or discussed this exact set of items. FourViolas (talk) 11:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS not a valid argument at AfD, those dynamic lists (well, the "Qu" may be fairly static) have clear guidelines for inclusion. No one is arguing one source has to discuss all of the songs on the list - the argument is no clear inclusion criteria for this list exists, and the difficulty of sourcing this list has been demonstrated by the removal of a number of poor sources which casually name-drop a particular song has an animal rights connection. SportingFlyer talk 12:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But there are clear inclusion criteria, two competing ones (the introduction of which has served to confuse this AfD): either a simple RS assertion that a song is animal rights-related (generating a list of at least 60 or so songs), or as you and Kingofaces43 seem to prefer, a RS with "more than a passing mention" of a song's connection to animal rights (leaving at least 39 per Kingofaces's most recent trim). I think the first is clearer, but if you think the second is required by WP:BALASPS, as Kingofaces does, you must be accepting that there is an effective RS consensus on which songs are important to the topic of animal rights-related songs, and therefore that the topic satisfies WP:LISTN. FourViolas (talk) 13:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, do not misrepresent editors when I blatantly told you this is incorrect in my last post before you even made this comment. Having sources mention individual songs may meet WP:DUE, but that does not imply notability to the group of songs. For notability, a source(s) needs to dig into the group or set of songs, but that doesn't mean a list needs to be restricted to only those mentioned there. That is distinct from sources that broadly talk about music and animal rights advocacy, which would be more appropriate at a main article rather than a list while not inherently giving notability to a list article. We have a few that fall into the category, but would be weak towards actually supporting notability of such a main article because they are usually focused on particular artists, etc. This AfD is only about a list though, so we need to stay on topic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t understand the distinction you’re trying to draw between "animal rights-related music" and "the set of all animal rights-related songs". What could the topic being discussed in RS like Castro 2009, Simonson 2001, or Lucchesi 2011 possibly be other than a group or set of songs about animal rights issues, given that the songs being discussed are not unified by genre or musical tradition? And if they’re only discussing the topic and not the songs as a group, why does each author spend a large proportion of their time naming and discussing particular songs?

There’s even a good case to be made for notability solely on the basis of list articles of animal rights or vegetarian-relates songs published in non-animal-rights-related reliable sources: Lucchesi 2011, Fossum 2012, and maybe Mechanic 2016.

Finally, for the record, identifying what I think is a logical entailment of your position—that, if including certain verifiable entries is giving their sources more than their due weight, there must be a sufficiently large universe of reliable sources on the list subject to determine which entries are appropriate to include, and therefore enough to write a well-sourced list, and therefore the list is notable—is manifestly not a personal attack on you. FourViolas (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is starting to WP:BLUDGEON the AfD, so especially since my posts are being misrepresented even though they already address everything you've brought up, I'll just leave my previous posts stand for themselves. In short, you're putting the cart before the horse with the comment about how authors spend time talking about songs. Someone could try to make a case for a main article with that argument, but we're at a list AfD instead. The impact of the group or set for notability is needed rather than the current sources talking about the broad topic and giving examples. As for things like the Westword source, that's enough for inclusion in a list, but doesn't establish list notability as already mentioned. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:01, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional comment. I just went through and did a major cleanup of the poor sourcing to things like lyrics databases, sources basically just namedropping a song as passing mention, etc. and was left with this. Those are really the only songs in the list where sources discuss an individual song beyond a one-liner. The problem is that inclusion in terms of assessing WP:DUE is independent of the outcome of this AfD. Those are mostly just sources discussing individual songs, not the group or set as we need for list notability. The lead was also trimmed to better conform with WP:LEADFORALIST since the title is self-evident. Many of those sources are discussed here anyways, but I would encourage editors to look at what the pruned version looks like with many of the poor references removed and the remaining properly formatted. I was open to changing my mind away from delete when cleaning everything up, but I'm still convinced deletion is the best route after going through what even the better sources have to say with regards to the songs as a set as opposed to the broader topic of animal rights and music that wouldn't automatically inherit notability towards a list of songs. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: So here are the sources that Andrew D. mentions. Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 8 are these books [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], which are impossible to check for specific named songs without a proper page reference. No. 2 is this article from the Yorkshire Post [14] which doesn't mention any songs by name. No. 6, the Moby article, only mentions one song by name, which isn't included in the article, and doesn't specifically say the song is about animal rights, only that the video features images of animal cruelty [15]. No. 7 only mentions one song by name, the Smiths' "Meat Is Murder", as a soubriquet for Morrissey [16]. The majority of the existing sources in the article are not RS, and even those that are RS require original research because they don't explicitly state that the song addresses a particular animal rights issue, it's usually implied – for example, Rick Wakeman explaining to Newsweek how "Don't Kill the Whale" was written [17], while the Wyndham Wallace article on the Colourfield mentions the track "Cruel Circus" three times without ever stating what the song is about, the animal rights issues are inferred from quoting the lyrics [18]. It's possible that the list could be kept, but it would have to be dramatically cut down to a handful of songs, because these are the only ones that can be reliably sourced. Richard3120 (talk) 13:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep More sources demonstrating that the topic of animal rights-related songs as a group has been addressed directly by multiple reliable sources, and therefore passes WP:LISTN:

• Pieslak, J. (2015). "The Music Cultures of Radical Environmental and Animal Rights Activism". Radicalism and Music: An Introduction to the Music Cultures of al-Qaida, Racist Skinheads, Christian-Affiliated Radicals, and Eco-Animal Rights Militants. Wesleyan University Press. p. 148. ISBN 978-0-8195-7585-2. Retrieved 2018-07-27.—this source alone ought to confirm notability
• Simonson, Peter (2001). "Social noise and segmented rhythms: News, entertainment, and celebrity in the crusade for animal rights". The Communication Review. 4 (3): 399–420. doi:10.1080/10714420109359476. ISSN 1071-4421. S2CID 145278028.—particularly section beginning p. 408 with Like other aspects of the U.S. tradition opposed to animal suffering, rock music for the cause was a British import
• Lucchesi, Nick (2011-10-01). "Ten great punk songs about going vegetarian". Westword. Retrieved 2018-07-27.
• Raven, Robin (2017-03-16). "7 Vegan Songs to Add to Your Playlist". VegNews.com. Retrieved 2018-07-27.

These sources each contain some amount of useful synthetic material about the topic as a whole, satisfying GNG, as well as plenty of individual song titles, allowing a good-sized list to be assembled without the need for any OR.

Also, WP:Fringe theories is a policy on how to treat pseudoscience or other ideas not broadly supported by scholarship in its field (unlike animal rights theories: 60% of ethicists in one survey rated eating meat as morally bad) to avoid misrepresenting the scholarly consensus. It is not a general recommendation against writing articles about countercultures. But even if you want to call the idea that people should write songs against the exploitation of animals a "fringe theory", the first two sources I listed satisfy WP:NFRINGE. FourViolas (talk) 13:33, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FourViolas, I don't think anybody is arguing that animal rights is a "fringe theory" or shouldn't be covered in Wikipedia, rather that there exist few reliable sources that explicitly name particular songs as being written about animal rights. I don't have access to the second source you cite, so I can't tell if it mentions any songs or not. The third source, Westword, looks like it passes RS, but the author is not a staff member. Richard3120 (talk) 15:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The second source names "Skin" by Siouxsie and the Banshees, "Assault and Battery" by Howard Jones, "Don't Kill the Animals" by Nina Hagen and Lene Lovich, and "Meat is Murder" by the Smiths. I'd have to check out the first one to see all the songs it lists as animal rights-related, but they include "This is the ALF" by Conflict and "Stop Talking—Start Revenging" by Vegan Reich.

I don't know why you say Lucchesi isn't a staff member; he has written dozens of articles for Westword, although he seems to have left a few years ago. And VegNews may not be an RS for many purposes (and doesn't contribute to satisfying NFRINGE), but it's as good a source as any for identifying elements of the culture of the animal rights movement. In addition, a WaPo review of PETA's Animal Liberation (album) names three more songs that "musically question the need to mistreat or consume non-human life": "Silent Cry" by Chris and Cosey, "Cruel Circus," by Colour Field, and the version of "Supernature" by Lovich. Brown, Joe (1988-06-10). "GRRR! FIGHT SONGS FOR ANIMAL RIGHTS". Washington Post. Retrieved 2018-07-27.

FourViolas (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, it was merely an observation that I can't see the second source, so I have to rely on you or another editor with access to source the named songs in it. Lucchesi isn't listed among the current staff [19], maybe he was a previous employer of the paper. Richard3120 (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete looking at the history of the page it's clear this is WP:OR, and it also seems to be an indiscriminate list. I understand it might be a notable topic from the above sources, but I have no idea what the criteria would be for adding the songs here, and it doesn't seem specified. SportingFlyer talk 03:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think Ojo del Tigre's initial edit summary—I have only added songs that I could listen to, read their lyrics and find sources that assert the position of the artists—is causing some confusion here. If the songs were added solely based on OdT's opinion that the lyrics seem animal rights-related, that would be OR. But every song is listed with a citation, and every citation I've checked includes an explicit assertion (by the songwriters or a qualified scholar) that the song in question was written to address a political issue relating to the human treatment of non-human animals. That seems like a clear enough criterion, and it eliminates the OR concern. Ojo del Tigre, could you confirm, or explain the criteria you've been using? FourViolas (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Most sources point to the specific issues addressed by the songs, whereas the songs sourced by lyrics don't make a quarter of the list and most of them come from compilations of the Animal Liberation Front.[20][21] What I meant on my edit summary was that if I find a reliable source for a song, but I couldn't listen to it, I would not add it (for example "Columbia is Bleeding"[22] by Nellie McKay, for which I've only found a demo version on YouTube). I've listened to and read the lyrics for all the entries, because I've seen musical articles developed by people who are good editors, but haven't heard the music, and in my opinion it's noticeable. On the other hand, I didn't add any song in which the stance of the artists (not only on their song, but personally) is not clear, so their lyrics could be sarcastic ("The Day Ted Nugent Killed All the Animals" by Wally Pleasant, "Tastes Like Chicken" by The Vandals, etc.) and in others there are some sources, but these are limited ("I’ll Stand by You" for instance). In some entries I added two or three sources, one specifically with the lyrics, because the first ones tend to generalize their themes (for example they might say "while the song x talks about broken hearts, y is about animal rights", or merely a passing mention by the composer) whereas the lyrics actually deal with very defined themes.

When the article was nominated, I realized that most of what I described was OR (but I was also surprised because I thought the A.L.F. links were reliable enough), although it is a small part of the list, and I have tried to correct it. I already did it with the songs named by Richard3120, but I've focused mainly on expanding the concept of "relationship between animal rights and music" in the lede. I will look for reliable sources for the other songs but they are a minority on the list. If they have to be removed, I have no problem with that. Ojo del tigre (talk) 04:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I'm no fan of indiscriminate, undefinable, or uncitable lists, but this is none of those things. There are multiple reliable sources cited at the end; every item is cited; and the list is sharply focused. It isn't easy to see why this should have been brought here, nor why anyone should feel the need to hunt around for additional sources to save it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article may have some OR issues but it's a notable topic. --Michig (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Valid article with notability. jonnycraig888 (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Kingofaces43 has been repeatedly removing almost the entire lead section (mostly written by Ojo de Tigre and revised by me; see the article's talk page). For the benefit of editors considering this AfD, a recent version, containing a large number of academic sources directly addressing animal rights songs as a group, is reproduced below.

• Keep. There's some academic and popular literature exploring animal rights in music, and a list of songs (if properly sourced) strikes me as an appropriate spin-off topic. I confess I am struggling to understand the argument being put forward by KingofAces about the notability/impact of the "group", and it sounds like a lot of the other concerns that have been raised (no doubt legitimately) can or have been solved through cleanup. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, well done clean-up and sourcing. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Pieslak book and Simonson publication from FourViolas's list of sources show that the list topic satisfies WP:LISTN, as songs about animal rights are discussed extensively as a group or set. The article lead was much stronger before the recent deletions, although some of it could benefit from being split into a separate "History" section above the list of songs. — Newslinger talk 18:30, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Obvious Heymann instance.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  04:47, 11 August 2018 (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.