Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jealousy (Queen song): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:08, 12 November 2010

Jealousy_(Queen_song)

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

Doesn't list any reason of why it's notable as an individual song, thus failing WP:NSONGS. No sources provided. Merge, maintance and prod tags have been removed with no explanation. Attempts to redirect to Jazz_(album) have been reverted. Enric Naval (talk) 19:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Enric Naval (talk) 19:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a song by Queen. Derp. MtD (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NSONGS and provide sources that allow to write a detailed article. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. I don't want to read WP:NSONGS or any other dreary lifeforce sapping guideline. It is a Queen song and it should have an article. How can that not be obvious? MtD (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not obvious in wikipedia.... --Enric Naval (talk) 12:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has policies and guidelines which govern what subjects can and can't be included. I'll defend to the death your right to hold fanboy attitudes, but surely what must be obvious to you is that they have no place in such discussions. Add me to the Merge and redirect crew. RGTraynor 18:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's policies can go and lick the pavement. MtD (talk) 11:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect with the parent album. The answer to the problem of a redirect being reverted is to protect the redirect, not to delete the article. This article is likely a permastub, but redirects are encouraged in the guidelines. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 19:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. I double-checked to make sure, but WP:NSONG says, "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article." That does not mean that redirects are encouraged. The song is not notable, there is no verifiable content worth merging--deletion is a solution. However, the page views per month number in the hundreds, up to 1000 (I checked only a few months), which might suggest it's a possible search term (obviously I can't tell if those visitors come from Jazz (album)). As DGG used to say, I believe, redirects are cheap. Drmies (talk) 05:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My concern over redirecting this is that it will break the chain of chronology in the single infoboxes (i.e. the links from the infoboxes in Don't Stop Me Now and Mustpha won't make sense). There again, it does seem very unusual the a Queen single at this point in their career should fail enter the charts at all. Does anyone know what's going on here? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sadly, it is going to break the chronology chain, the consecutive listing of complete singles. Unfortunately, there's a lot of heartless editors out there who just don't care. What a pity. Best, --Discographer (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nor should we, of course; "making the navboxes look pretty" forms no part of inclusion criteria. RGTraynor 02:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - However, this isn't about making Navboxes look pretty, it's about making Wikipedia easy for users to navigate. That may not be Wikipedia policy in its own right, but it is part of common sense which falls under [[WP:IAR], which is policy. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - In which case the links ought to be designed to do so, or else the links should be eliminated. I've heard worse rationales to keep an otherwise non-notable article than ease of navigation, but very few. RGTraynor 09:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 ::::It is not obvious in wikipedia.... --[[User:Enric Naval|Enric Naval]] ([[User talk:Enric Naval|talk]]) 12:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 ::::: Wikipedia has policies and guidelines which govern what subjects can and can't be included.  I'll defend to the death your right to hold fanboy attitudes, but surely what must be obvious to you is that they have no place in such discussions.  Add me to the '''Merge and redirect''' crew. [[User:RGTraynor|'''<span style="background:Blue;color:Cyan"> &nbsp;RGTraynor&nbsp;</span>''']] 18:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
+::::::Wikipedia's policies can go and lick the pavement. [[User:Matty the Damned|MtD]] ([[User talk:Matty the Damned|talk]]) 11:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 *'''Merge and redirect''' with the parent album. The answer to the problem of a redirect being reverted is to protect the redirect, not to delete the article. This article is likely a permastub, but [[WP:NSONG|redirects are encouraged in the guidelines.]] [[User:Dylanfromthenorth|Dylanfromthenorth]] ([[User talk:Dylanfromthenorth|talk]]) 19:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 *'''Merge and redirect'''. I double-checked to make sure, but WP:NSONG says, "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article." That does '''not''' mean that redirects are encouraged. The song is not notable, there is no verifiable content worth merging--deletion is a solution. However, the page views per month number in the hundreds, up to 1000 (I checked only a few months), which might suggest it's a possible search term (obviously I can't tell if those visitors come from [[Jazz (album)]]). As DGG used to say, I believe, redirects are cheap. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 05:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)