Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inward singing (2nd discussion)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Grandmasterka 18:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inward singing

Inward singing is a form of singing that involves singing an unroken series of words and notes, even while inhaling. Believed hoax. This is a completely different, more sensible article from the one that got deleted by the previous AfD discussion so I am giving it another chance. But what I still want to know is: circular breathing is a well established technique applicable to wind instruments and inflating balloons, so why can it not used by singers? -- RHaworth 01:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Discussion below was absolutely, totally incomprehensible due unsigned posts, inserted out of order, so no one could figure out who posted what, when. I have attempted to factor them. Please sign your posts, by entering four tilde's (~~~~) at the end of the line.' Fan-1967 02:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"Sorry,... I didn't know how... thanks (~~~~)

  • No, no, no! Don't put the "nowiki" tags. I did that to show what they look like. Just use the tilde's, and it translates to your name and a date/time. Fan-1967 02:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops: Thanks, I got it now.. this is helpful (~~~~)Sugarboogy phalanx 02:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Please help me understand this. I have now confined the article to those facts directly referenceable in WP (like descriptions of vocal physiology) and facts from the only extant reference to inward singing (Tenacious D 2001). I can even demonstrate this technique as I have used it myself.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugarboogy phalanx (talk • contribs) 01:38, 11 August 2006
  • Example: If circular breathing were used in shakespearean theater in such a manner to revolutionize dialog delivery... would it not deserve a contextual article?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugarboogy phalanx (talk • contribs) 01:40, 11 August 2006
  • >I have just reviewed the audio recording and the transcript... I can't find any factual errors...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugarboogy phalanx (talk • contribs) 01:43, 11 August 2006
  • >Just did web search... and 5 years after album's release, Black claim has never once been contested.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugarboogy phalanx (talk • contribs) 01:45, 11 August 2006
    • The technique may be known under another name. Believe me or not, in childhood I applied the same technique in silly contests who can make a longer nonstop shriek. `'mikka (t) 02:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
      • a: Fair enough... would you like a citation inthe article then? I merely want to showcase the technique, even if Black doesn't get the exclusive full credit.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugarboogy phalanx (talk • contribs) 02:04, 11 August 2006
    • this review describes someone using this technique in 2000, the year before Black claims in the comedy song to have invented it. Comedy songs are not reliable sources. Uncle G 13:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • >reviewed previous discussion,.. have carefully avoided copyright issue in this article.. all clear?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugarboogy phalanx (talk • contribs) 01:48, 11 August 2006
  • Answer for RHaworth: The method section of circular breathing article descibes "allowing the cheeks to deflate"... this would make articulation of words nearly impossible... it's a whole different technique. The parallel would be an example in which a fella inhaled through his trumpet or woodwind... never happens.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugarboogy phalanx (talk • contribs) 01:56, 11 August 2006
  • Speedy delete Already unanimously deleted once, it appears to be a joke that some editors took seriously. The fact that it was recreated after a deletion consensus (which ended in a unanimous position to delete) leads me to believe that someone wasn't aware of its deletion, or cocky enough to create a new one. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 02:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No... hey wait... I wasn't even aware of that previous thing... and that was a copyright deltion.. this is matters of fact.. Sugarboogy phalanx 02:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Please Don't Delete This is a toally diferent approach to a vocal innovation,.. not the mere entry of lyrics to the re-enactment.... I specificaly kept it serious, and didn't even mention that the technichnique effectly makes the vocalist "like a one-man-band"... which might actually be worth noting. (~~~~) Sugarboogy phalanx 02:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --דניאל talk contribs Email 03:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. -It's a joke. --Chris Griswold 05:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, it isn't. Like mikkalai, I've actually used this technique when singing, in emergences, long before Jack Black thought up a comedy song about it. The problem with the concept isn't that it doesn't exist. It is that it hasn't been properly documented anywhere. We cannot have an article until this concept has been properly documented outside of Wikipedia first. The problem isn't silliness. It is original research and unverifiability. We cannot take Sugarboogy phalanx's, mikkalai's, or my words that this technique exists. We don't accept personal testimony of Wikipedia editors. Readers must be able to verify it, and to verify it using multiple independent sources, that are more reliable than a comedy song. Uncle G 12:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Having written that, I am now surprised to discover that there are sources on the subject of singing whilst inhaling. Some performers, such as Joan La Barbara, are even noted for employing circular singing. See this, and this, for examples. These are what an encyclopaedia article should be based upon, not a comedy song. Uncle G 13:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as incoherent account of what seems to be an established circular breathing technique which may not bear the name given. AlexTiefling 15:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • For the love of god, I love Tenacious D, but this was just something that was done in one skit on a single CD by one band, and as a result, should be deleted. And yes, I meant that whole thing to be bold. -- Kicking222 15:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • MERGE into "circular breathing" in a somewhat trimmed form, as a particular example, under the condition of providing references to testimonies of Jack Black published in reliable sources. `'mikka (t) 18:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


  • Delete Okay now c'mon!! If somebody wrote the first ever article about "Who's on First",.. but they wrote in the same veign in which the skit/bit was delivered, as if the team actually exists (I know it sounds obtuse, but hell, that's the device that made it so funny). Even if you had an extreme stick up yout butt about the sanctity of WP's credibility,.... you'd probably swarm round the article and correct it's overall theme to be (accurately) a description of comic/artistic work. I didn't write that article to test the boundaries of latency of WP, but to both inform AND amuse. It's amazes me that so many folks have put so much energy into "talking" about how this article should be DELETED,... but not one person has suggested the one most appropriate thing and the easiest most frequent thing done on WP... correcting the article so that one of TD's more notable tracks has an "appropriate" entry in WP... really, have you ever heard a better tirade of disgust than the spitting-mad burst (sections 1 or 2 in the bit, before and after the phrase "you sit in your tower nap..") that JB unleashes in the track..? Jack black didn't REALLY fire Kyle for naysaying his revolutionary invention, Spinal Tap isn't a real band, and "Who" wasn't REALLY on first... but would it have killed ya to play along for the sake of an infotaining article? Couldn't we have invented an appropriate header statement to frame such a thing (like "the following is a tongue-in cheek description in the comic veign of the Abbot and Costello performance piece"). Sugarboogy phalanx 14:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC) >>>Addendum: Would not such a header statement also make possible a separate article about Santa Clause so that parents could show their kids without ruining it for them?? You DO know that the US Postal Service has never once returned a santa letter to sender as undeliverable... right? So am I to believe that WP now takes iteself MORE seriously than the US Postal... what a bummer if that's the case. Sugarboogy phalanx 15:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Big fat delete. It's a great album, but it was a *joke*, people. Vashti 07:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • ---DELETE !--- ITS JUST A JOKE, not a serious singing technique—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.39.66.202 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, obviously. --Satori Son 19:25, 15 August 2006 (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.