This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Moved first two as requested, Listen to My Heart (song) is redirected to the DAB. All the arguments are grounded in policy, but there seems no case for the BoA song being the primary topic of Listen to My Heart (song). Even the Ramones song seems more important in external-world attention. EdJohnston (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Support per nom. There are six topics on the dab page, and none seem primary (and WP:SONGDAB applies to the song). —BarrelProof (talk) 04:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Support all three per nom. There is no reason to leave the ambiguous title Listen to My Heart (song) for the unsourced article on the non-notable song. Dicklyon (talk) 08:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Support, except for the song because there are no other song articles for "Listen to My Heart" a hatnote is plenty sufficient. Raykyogrou0(Talk) 15:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
The Japanese song is barely a stub and should really be merged into the album, the 1939 film song, Nancy LaMott song, Ramones song, Bats song have more content in album article than this Japanese single stub. Not to mention more presence in print sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Support, support, and oppose, respectively, per Raykyogrou0. I agree with IIO's assessment about the relative coverage of the songs, however. If we can agree to that the BoA song should just be a redirect to the album, which I think makes sense, I would be fine with the last move, with Listen to My Heart (song) redirecting to the dab. BarrelProof, Dicklyon, Raykyogrou0, and In ictu oculi, what do you think? --BDD (talk) 23:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Personally no, when I say "should really be merged into the album" that's only an opinion based on the song's current state which I wouldn't like to follow up with action. My view is that the encyclopedia is constantly expanding, and effectively back-door AfDing a song article into the album during a RM isn't a good thing. It is a smaller and more helpful thing to simply follow WP:DAB and have Listen to My Heart (BoA song) rather than constantly playing "hide the song" "guess the artist". There's never any damage in having an artist name before (??guess who?? song) when there's more than one song covered in articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
The current Listen to My Heart (song) has no references, so there's no evidence that it deserves an article. So a merge seems plausible. If someone comes up with sources to establish notability, we can consider what the most appropriate title is at that time. Either way, it's not a reason to hold up the main point of this RM. Actually, I see the album also has no sources. We could just delete these; at least merging them for now gets rid of one unsourced article. Dicklyon (talk) 03:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Support the album and dab page, oppose moving the song, as there are no other songs of that title.--Cúchullaint/c 15:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Clearly I meant no songs with articles. None of the others have anything resembling coverage at any other article; 3 of them aren't even mentioned in the linked articles.--Cúchullaint/c 14:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I just fixed one link to refer to the correct article. Four of the other songs now have articles that at least mention their relevant song (although the song is not the only topic discussed in those articles). The coverage in the Ramones article actually has more depth of coverage than in this article, and The Ramones themselves are obviously a much more notable group of artists in terms of long-term historical importance (and this song is on their highly-important debut album). There is a full paragraph there with six lengthy sentences, citing five reliable sources talking about what the song is about and what various critics have said about it and its importance to the history of the band's music and to the biography of the band's members – something that is entirely missing in this article. This article has no discussion of what that song is about at all, no comments from critics – no depth of coverage at all. It is only chart statistics. Chart statistics are not even sufficient, by themselves, to establish notability. Whether a song is discussed in a separate article or within some other article should have no bearing on this question. Certainly, the Ramones song is notable – apparently more notable than this one, and probably of much greater long-term importance to readers. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
And the Nancy LaMott song is the title song of an album that was literally a matter of life and death in the biography of the artist. This song? What is its importance and notability? We have nothing here but chart statistics. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
The Ramones song is mentioned in one sentence and the track listing, the others have even less than that. I don't have any objection to expanding this article or finding another solution such as merging, but that's outside the scope of an RM discussion. As long as it's the only article on a song the extra disambiguation isn't necessary.--Cúchullaint/c 21:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.