Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Complexity of Songs

:{{la|The Complexity of Songs}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Complexity_of_Songs Stats])

:({{Find sources|The Complexity of Songs}})

Why is an individual humorous article worthy of a serious article here? It does not seem to have made any lasting impact (besides for being listed in every list of mathematical humor thereafter) nor does it seem to have been cited much (obviously! that would be notably funny). הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 02:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• keep. Why not? Originally a conference paper, it was reprinted twice in mainstream computer sci joutnals, meaning serious people had found it notable. Being listed in every list also means it is notable. Aslo, it is not about one article but three, by three different people. The article has 3-rd party refs. - Altenmann >t 02:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. Clearly this paper has won recognition within the field of computer science. The theory of song refrains has probably been covered by musicologists and a wider search could most likely find relevant material beyond what computer scientists have looked into. See {{cat|Formal sections in music analysis}}. EdJohnston (talk) 05:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• Am I missing something? The article says it was a spoof, why would it be referred to in serious theories of song refrains by musicologists? הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 05:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• The article says that it was an in-joke, not a spoof. Uncle G (talk) 12:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• Unbelievable, isn't it? A joke article is referred in serious publichaitons! Well, it was a great joke by a great scientist. - Altenmann >t 20:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Keep well sourced article; paper seems to have been reprinted, listed in multiple lists and well known, so passes notability threshold. A joke can still be a notable joke. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: As far as I know, multiple mentions on lists and a moderate amount of citations don't suffice for notability, whether for journal articles or for in-jokes/spoofs; in-depth coverage is what is needed, and I see no indication (after searching Google Scholar) of there being any. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 19:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• :This is a journal article. Its notability is defined by citations. The article is self-explanatory and does not need extensive "in-depth coverage". - Altenmann >t 19:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• ::True, perhaps; that is why I wrote moderate amount of citations. A large number of citations are generally considered sufficient for notability (of journal articles? or of a subject/discovery/hypothesis?). Google Scholar has 17 citations, I believe; considering my relative ignorance, I would rather that others decide whether they imply notability. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 19:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• ::: Well, 17 citations in serious papers, such as [http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1870674 "Poetic" statistical machine translation: rhyme and meter] for a joke article says about its influence, hence notability. - Altenmann >t 20:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• ::::Please look at :Category:Academic journal articles and take a few samples to get an idea just how widely cited an individual journal article must be to be considered notable. "Multiple citations" is a criterion of WP:PROF, I believe; an article is a different matter entirely. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 20:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• :::::Thanks for a suggestion of the category to add to the article (done). About the rest, sorry, disagreed. For wikipedia purposes, it is established that Knuth's article is well-known among computer scientists and even (moderately) influential. Hence moderately notable. - Altenmann >t 20:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Keep I've added another reference indicating the paper had some impact on CS pedagogy. Back in the day, this was popular among CS students--it was a very xeroxed, passed around paper. While the paper was considered an in-joke, the results in the paper are correct--the joke was in the implied social commentary that songs were dumbing down, probably because of drugs. Unfortunately, people don't write news stories or learned articles about very xeroxed, passed around papers in academic circles, so there are relatively few citations indicating its impact at the time. Still, there are sufficient follow-on articles by others for there to be multiple independent RS and notability over time to keep the article. Mark viking (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: Yet, it seems irrational that every well-known academic article should qualify for an article (cf. WP:NBOOK). If this article is to be kept, it is only for its final line sentence: "...Knuth's article was seminal for analysis of a special class of functions."
• WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. - Altenmann >t 07:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment 2: I am not opposed to a merge to Mathematical joke or Donald Knuth or to some aspect of music theory computational complexity theory (?). הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 23:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• In this case, since this page is reasonably large, after merge into Donald Knuth it will only be eligible to split out bac, per Wikipedia:Summary style. - Altenmann >t 05:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

: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.