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 delete. Punkmorten 22:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs featuring cowbells[edit]

I'm sorry, but we cannot have an article in an encyclopedia which is a) unsourced, and b) claims that Bob Dylan, David Bowie, the Beatles, Jay-Z, The Byrds, George Harrison, Black Sabbath, Dizzy Gillespie (Dizzy fricking Gillespie!) and countless others had songs featuring cowbells.

There are two references in the entire article that verifies two songs. The rest is taken from "The Cowbell Project" (I'm assuming, since that's the only external link, which itself is just some crazy fanatics home page, and cites no sources).

I know people are fond of their internet memes, and that's fine. You can have your articles on Star Wars kids and Numa Numas and whatever. That's ok, I don't have any problem with them at all. But honestly, can you call yourself a good wikipedian if you want an article in an encylopedia that claims that Jimi Hendrix used cowbells.

Kill it, kill it fast! Oskar 03:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Crufty, unverified list, most likely created due to a related internet meme.--TBCTaLk?!? 04:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or significantly pare down to what is sourced. - I could see how this list could possibly be useful if it were properly sourced, as any list of songs featuring any particular instument could in theory be useful. However, "The cowbell project" doesn't look like it can be considered a reliable source. They have a place to submit songs to add to their list that looks like anybody could add, verified or not. I can see that being an external link but not a source. As of right now there are 2 songs that have a source which I haven't checked to see if they are reliable or not. Assuming they are, that would leave this entire article with 2 songs reliably sourced, which would make this article useless. If someone wants to find a reliable source for each song on here though I would welcome it and would reconsider my vote. VegaDark 04:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or significantly pare down to what is sourced IOW I concur with VegaDark. Although by the looks of it only two or three songs are sourced.--T. Anthony 04:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Just Delete it as listcruft Bwithh 04:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lame offshoot of a beaten-into-the-ground internet meme. Opabinia regalis 05:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete You're really going to want less cowbell (someone had to say it) - Richfife 06:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was actually kinda dreading that someone would Oskar 07:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As per nomination. Just on a side note however, Jimi Hendrix did in fact use cowbells. the song "Stone Free" has a very noticeable amount of cowbell. It would be very hard to miss it. Nauticashades 10:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOT a set of lists, or an indiscriminate collection of links. Complete cruft Localzuk ^(talk) 11:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.UberCryxic 16:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Listcruft doktorb _words^deeds 17:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT. --Nishkid64 17:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as listcruft.--Jersey Devil 17:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete violates Wikipedia: No Original Research if you need a reason beyond simply looking at the article. Oldcritter 20:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete why is this the 3rd nomination? Danny Lilithborne 22:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A very good question Oskar 23:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• As a percussionist I can tell you the cowbell is a very fine instrument. As a Wikipedian, I can tell you this is a very pointless list. Delete.-- danntm ^T _C 23:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Ponderable: How many of these songs actually feature jamblocks instead of cowbells? Or some other similar sounding instrument? - Richfife 02:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Maintain I don't know the proper format for this... so I'm just following the lead here. I have been a long-time wikipedia reader (and active promoter!) and have to say that I have referenced this article twice. Unfortunately, this time it looks like it's marked for deletion. The reason I referenced it was because I was listening to Bon Jovi's "You Give Love a Bad Name" and you can definitely hear the cowbell between times 0:10-0:20 of the song (and possibly more later) and I wanted to see if it REALLY is cowbell! Sure there may be ONE reference, but honestly... how many idiots do you need 'to change a lightbulb?'--metaphorically speaking. I like how everyone is saying that certain songs definitely DON'T have cowbell... but how many people actually loaded up their playlist and listened for it? And BTW WP:NOT doesn't exclude lists... it doesn't even mention lists. Why? Because that would exclude lists of former presidents, nobel prize winners, etc. etc. Point made. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.250.246.160 (talk • contribs) .

I am not against lists at all, in fact I've made several lists. I started List of draughts players, List of Mennonites, and List of music prodigies. That said the things in a list have to have the topic as part of their notability. See Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). Even the confirmed examples here would not be less known if they lacked cowbell or at least it's debatable they would as no one cared that they did until years later due to a comedy sketch. Still on searching I find that there is a List of songs featuring hand claps and List of songs featuring vibraslap, but those are the only other instruments I find. It does make me ponder though so I'll under the cross out I did above.--T. Anthony 03:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see there's also List of songs featuring finger snaps and Songs that start with telephone sounds--T. Anthony 03:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't the worst of our problems. I'm much more concerned with the fact we have a List of songs about robots. VegaDark 05:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I disagree a bit there. That a song is about a robot could be a central element and even be important to its notability. I'm not sure any song is notable for having handclapping, a vibraslap, or a telephone sound.--T. Anthony 07:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bananaphone. VegaDark 18:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not remotely suitable for an encyclopedia. Committ anyone who thought writing it added to the stock of the world's knowledge. Legis 15:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Maintain -- sure, it needs pruning, but what doesn't? --207.99.73.226 17:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the previous nomination and resolve any sourcing issues. Yamaguchi先生 23:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no encyclopaedic topic "songs featuring cowbells"; the definition of "featuring" is arbitrary (how many cowbell beats in the drum tabs before it counts as featuring?); no reliable sources for this information have been identified after two previous AfDs, making "keep and source" a null vote on the basis that previous attempts to keep and source have resulted in keeping and not sourcing; the likelihood of verifiable sources existing for most of these are slim anyway since the listener can't tell the difference betwen a sampole and a real cowbell, and full scores are rarely published these days, so any song in the last couple of decades is goign to amount to original research pretty much by definition. I'm sure there are other problems as well, but those are the major ones that I see here. Guy 14:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per pervious nominations but take out anyting that isn't sourced in this or a pointed to article. StuffOfInterest 23:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the reasons advanced in the previous nominations. The list establishes a notable connection between songs. You can certainly argue that the article needs cleanup and sourcing, but that is a content issue. -Kubigula (ave) 19:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Still Delete Content sourcing issues normally don't apply in AFD, except in this case there is no physical way that the article could ever hope to be properly sourced. Is that a cowbell I hear or a jamblock? Is it a sample? Is it someone banging on a roadie's head? If you look at the written logs that come out of a recording session, about all you ever see are: "Track 1: Guitar 1 Track 2: Guitar Fills Track 3: Percussion Track 4: Bass... etc.". They don't keep records of whether or not a cowbell was used. Also, if you really get right down to it, this article isn't so much a real scholarly work as it is an attempt to keep a meme alive. - Richfife 21:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is definitely not scholarly; it's part of what I think of as the more playful side of WP. It is, however, a list that establishes a notable connection between the referenced items. It would be notable in a very small way, but for the SNL sketch generating a little more interest in the previously overlooked cowbell. Sure, it's a little crufty, but you only have to read the talk page and the comments in the various deletion discussions to see that it generates interest and discussion. Your point about the difficulty of sourcing the article is well taken. However, I could see Rolling Stone asking Mick Jagger if that was really a cowbell in Brown Sugar. Alternately, the article could disclaim that the songs contain cowbell or a cowbell-like instrument and use the songs as the source - as we might use a book as a source for a quoted phrase.-Kubigula (ave) 22:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as listcruft --Storkk 14:14, 22 September 2006 (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.