Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sheik of Araby

Add links
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 keep. WP:SNOW keep was rejected by the nominator, so I undid it and let it run for a full seven days. However, editors clearly believe that coverage of the song constitutes WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) buidhe 06:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Sheik of Araby[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

The Sheik of Araby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough sources for an article of substance Vmavanti (talk) 00:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added these to the article in a Further reading section so that editors who want to improve the article can use them as resources. -- Toughpigs (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as it totally meets notability and sources are easy to find if you open your eyes to the Google. I actually LOLed at this nomination. This song is a HUGE deal. It was one of the most popular songs of the decade. Did you consider completing WP:BEFORE? I couldn't even guess how many sources would cover this song, but it would be a LOT. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A heavily-covered song, from Duke Ellington, to Django Reinhardt, even to The Beatles. Along with the sources listed above, WP:NSONG criterion 3 applies. AllyD (talk) 09:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Those of us interested in improving the article, you may want to check out this version from a few weeks ago. It has a lot more information, though it did need citations... I have seen in a tertiary source that it charted at #3 by two artists and I will search for secondary sources to back this up before adding it. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thing is, a long list of people who covered the song is _not_ what makes for a good article; for songs covered by hundreds of artists, like this one, a shorter list is far more informative. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 15:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not more informative to include less information about a subject. It is not necessarily even more succinct. It's only quicker and a matter of personal preference. I referred to the earlier list of notable recordings as it relates to WP:NSONG criterion #3. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. An un-annotated list of (as it was) a mostly random selection of a few dozen of the thousand or so artists who have covered the song actually provides less information than a well curated list of the artists whose covers of the song have charted or been otherwise notable. The earlier list was not a list of notable recordings, nor was it annotated to indicate why the selections on the list were of interest. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 19:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...Yes... which is why I suggested the editors who are improving this article look to it for research direction. I never said to restore it, disagreed with its removal, or implied that it was exhaustive. Of course unsourced content could and should not be included. As most of the recordings on the old version of the list are by notable artists, one could search for information on, say, Fats Waller's recording, possibly find a review/charting/use in media/other relevant content, and include that information and sourcing in the article... Yes, it is inexhaustive, unsourced, randomly ordered, and perhaps even flawed. Reviewing it is simply a suggestion for the people who have access to resources and inclination to research to improve the article. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plenty of sources available to demonstrate notability. Rlendog (talk) 15:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Though this article may not have many citations, it is still notable and a quick Google search reveals that there are plenty of sources available to be cited. Most of the articles on Wikipedia lack enough citations. It passed WP:GNG and can easily pass WP:SOURCE with a little effort. Bᴇʀʀᴇʟʏ • Talk to me∕What have I been doing 20:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - IMHO this AFD shows why doing a thorough WP:BEFORE search is important. While the article was not in good condition there are sources available online to back it up. I fully agree with DiamondRemley39 on using the older material as a direction for looking for additional sources to corroborate what can be substantiated. Michepman (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Sheik_of_Araby&oldid=946284535"