Talk:Canon Rock (music)

message: I found this article via google, because I got used to this superb feature of wikipedia - its 
completeness. Everything worth being described - is described here, so I often start my searches by 
checking the wiki e.g. if I want to learn something about bikes, I just google for "bike +wiki".
And today I googled for "canon rock +wiki". What do I see? A nice article and a deletion template.
Wikipedia is a good source of knowledge on everything, not only "ecyclopedia britannica" things. If I want to learn about something like music I start with wikipedia, not britannica. Not only are the articles good, but also they usually provide links, that allow deeper research.
Just like this article.
Unfortunately nowadays, wikipedia is being raided by deletion nazis. Why should this article be deleted? It is GOOD. It provides information and links. What also should it have?
I have this feeling, that recently I see a deletion template nearly every time when I come across an article on wikipedia. If you really dont like this article, perhaps you should not read it, or stop reading wikipedia at all? Someone spent some time and created this USEFUL piece of writing.
If you consider this article poor - then upgrade it, instead of deleting it. I bet you cant contribute in any way, so you spam your deletion templates and then argue on deleting the articles...
You do not contribute, you destroy wikipedia and steal the time, that other people could use on improving their articles, instead of defending them from deletion.
[User:Agameofchess|Agameofchess]] (talk) 14:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not matter what a google search returns (or how we somehow "destroy Wikipedia") - this article fails WP:NOTE. Also, thanks for your personal attacks both on here and on my talk page - it really shows your maturity. --DannyDaWriter (talk) 23:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is good and should not be deleted

message: What music is in the background that this is played on top of? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.181.243.203 (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the background track? 

message: Since this is alot more popular than the uninhabited island Canon Rock, maybe we should make this page the main page for Canon Rock. JasonDeLima 07:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.Arogi Ho 01:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving The Page

message: Now I'm not arguing the musical merit of the composition, as I personlly enjoy this very much, but is a single cover of Pachelbel's Canon made in a Youtube video *really* noteworthy of an encyclopedic article? I just think that something so specific and minor don't really merit a full article, and it's debatable if it even deserves a full subheading in the main Canon in D article, as there have been plenty of covers of the song, and well... I don't see it being a valid candidate for a Wikipedia entry.
To clarify, I know that this article cleared notability before, but I simply do not believe that something such a single youtube video, no matter how popular, and no matter how many times it's been imitated, is worthy of a full article. And from the sources section of the page, I don't see that this has recieved any attention from the mainstream media. If this were part of a larger article, perhaps about the artist, or perhaps as a sub-section of the Canon in D article, it would seem more valid, but I fail to see the validity and noteability of a single cover of a well-known baroque period song which probably has more covers than any other song in history. If, perhaps, there were some valid sources on this, then I would feel differently, but even then it would simply seem like making an article on a single part of a larger trend, such as (for example) the case of Wikipedia merging the page on various memes with each other: even though there has been plenty of mainstream coverage in some cases, they would still be marked as not noteworthy on their own.
NonaSuomi (talk) 07:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; I believe this page would probably be best off merged with JerryC's article.   Aaron  ►  03:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Noteworthy?

message: Removed. There seems to have been no criteria in adding those videos, and they shouldn't have been there anyway. In the future, please stick to adding more notable links. For example, anything that's referenced in an official publication or broadcast. Thanks,   Aaron  ►  03:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Other versions" 

message: I looked up the song by ZOX referred to in the "Covers" section.  It is definitely not a cover of Canon Rock.  The article defines Canon Rock as Jerry Changs composition on guitar, but the ZOX version uses many instruments and is much, much different.
Don't know if whoever added that was trying to help this indie band out or what, but I went ahead and removed it.
Crh0872 (talk) 20:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ZOX 

message: I removed the useless and irrelevant tablature section and removed the 2 bs references, both of which were guitar tabs; neither indicating notability.
And I'm not sure if the Google video, which has no visible view count, can be counted as a source of notability (it's only source of notability) so I am in disagreement on behalf of this article being kept, but whatever.NexCarnifex (talk) 23:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit