Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tweedle Dee & Tweedle Dum

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 redirect all. --Aarktica 12:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tweedle Dee & Tweedle Dum

edit
AfDs for this article:
Tweedle Dee & Tweedle Dum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Fails the criteria set out by WP:MUSIC#Songs on every level. It didn't chart, has won no awards, not noteworthy, hasn't been performed by any other groups or artists and hasn't been covered by independent works. I have searched for sources and have come up with nothing. Seraphim Whipp 00:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; these articles contain content not suitable for an encyclopedia (as they stand).

The fact that notability is "WP:JUSTAGUIDELINE" doesn't mean that it can be disregarded; these articles do fail the relevant outlined notability guideline. Complete lack of proof of notability is a valid reason for deletion as found at WP:DEL#REASON.

I'm not prejudiced to recreation, in fact the opposite, when sources have been found that is exactly what should happen. I just think these articles were created prematurely and don't comply with our encylopedic standards.

Summer Days (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lonesome Day Blues (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Floater (Too Much to Ask) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Moonlight (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Honest with Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Po' Boy (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cry a While (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Delete all Non-singles are generally not notable enough for articles. I see no potential for expansion in any of these. They all deserve a mention in the "Love and Theft" album of course. Spellcast 00:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Related afd : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/'Til I Fell in Love with You. (I'm sure there's a fancy way of doing that...) Seraphim Whipp 01:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bundling articles like this isn't usually though to be a good idea. Are you going to nominate every song on Wikipedia or just the Bob Dylan ones? Nick mallory 01:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why are you assuming bad faith? I've done nothing to warrant the attitude you are displaying towards me. I have bundled these nominations because the articles are identical and therefore the exact same rationale for deletion applies. You haven't given a reason why these articles should be kept. Seraphim Whipp 01:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • They're all single-sentence articles of songs from the same album, the only differences being the song titles. Listing them separately would have been the bad idea in this case. Thomjakobsen 01:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all to the appropriate album as articles with minimal content (an identical single sentance only varying in the song's name, as well as some metadata better incorporated in the main album article), and no content indicating the importance of the song beyond the fact it exists. -- saberwyn 01:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all to "Love and Theft", as it is reasonable to expect that someone may search using those song titles. J. Spencer 03:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all per saberwyn. And for the record, I agree with the bundling too. Bfigura (talk) 03:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Most songs should redirect to the relevant notable unless there are reliable sources showing independent notability. However, perhaps Tweedle Dee & Tweedle Dum should redirect to Tweedledum and Tweedledee as many people would type that searching for information on the Alice in Wonderland characters. This article as it happens briefly mentions the Dylan song. Capitalistroadster 03:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think it is important to point out that WP:MUSIC#Songs is not policy yet. It is still currently being debated on the talk page and should not be brandished about as if it were policy. --Cyrus Andiron 12:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons already stated. I would like to point out that I created all of the articles in question, and that user Seraphim Whipp is demanding deletion for personal reasons--her actions are not motivated by a desire for a better Wikipedia.--Dawson1066 14:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've never been a fan of blanket nominations, especially when the rationale for deletion is not even an official policy yet. I look at it this way: Bob Dylan is notable, thus Bob Dylan's songs are notable. Until the community comes to a consensus that contradicts this, there is no reason to remove the articles. --Cyrus Andiron 16:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you read WP:NOTINHERITED? I will happily expand my rationale for deletion if it is not suitable. Seraphim Whipp 16:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Okay, that's an essay. It is not a policy or guideline; it merely reflects the opinions of some of its author(s). Until you start proving your arguments with actual policy, you're not really getting anywhere. --Cyrus Andiron 17:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Umm I have... It's above ^. I added it in the edit before yours... Seraphim Whipp 17:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay. WP:MUSIC#Songs is not official policy and is still being debated. WP:JUSTAGUIDELINE is also an essay. As far as I can see, you have yet to quote policy in any of your arguments. As I said before, the songs are notable because Bob Dylan is notable. Until the community produces a guideline that contradicts that, I don't think you have a valid rationale for deletion. It is certainly not indiscriminate. How is an article about a song random, haphazard or chaotic? --Cyrus Andiron 17:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Wikipedia:Deletion policy is a policy. These songs have been mentioned in the relevant album article. You say they are not indiscriminate, I say they are. We'll just have to disagree on that. In the interests of fairness, I'd like to mention that you haven't provided any reasons for keeping as of yet, except for that the songs are notable because Bob Dylan is notable. There is no policy to back that up. Also I'd like to note that no discussion about the song's criteria has taken place since August, so it is not currently being debated. There is a wider discussion going on which involves the merging of the separate notability guidelines. Seraphim Whipp 17:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment The deletion policy you tried to link to deals with speedy deletion criteria. These articles are not likely to be speedied. I have already said that the songs are notable because the artist is notable. Show me a policy that proves otherwise. I don't have to provide reasoning beyond what I already have. You do. You are attempting to have these articles removed, thus the burden of proof is on you. Usually, indiscriminate information refers to lists like People with 8 fingers and 12 toes or American actors of Irsih descent living in New Jersey. Those are examples of indiscriminate lists. I have never heard of that poliy applying to a song before. --Cyrus Andiron 17:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • I believe you're wrong there. The policy I linked deals with reasons for deletion not speedy reasons. I wasn't suggesting these articles would be speedied. I have provided more than enough reasons for deletion. Conversation between us is leading nowhere. Seraphim Whipp 17:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Comment I agree. But you've yet to provide any valid reasons for deletion. The songs are notable as long as the artist is notable. Articles about songs aren't indiscriminate, that's laughable. --Cyrus Andiron 17:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I believe I have. "Songs aren't indiscriminate": that is your opinion which differs from mine. Please return the respect I have given your opinion by not belittling mine; I didn't call your opinion "laughable". Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Seraphim Whipp 18:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment None of the reasons for deletion have been addressed yet. I've had over 100 mixtapes by very notable artists deleted in the past month and let me tell you something: Notability is certainly not inherited! No in-depth reliable sources that discuss each of these songs in detail have been provided. The album as a whole is obviously notable, the songs by themselves aren't. Spellcast 18:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User Cyrus Andiron has raised good points that need to be adequately addressed. Seraphim Whipp, you linked to Wikipedia:Deletion policy but did not point to any particular part to back up your stance. Please do so.--Dawson1066 23:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The nom's rationale is there are no reliable sources provided that discuss each of these songs in detail. Like WP:V says: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Spellcast 23:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Try WP:DEL#REASON: "Reasons for deletion include … subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline." In this case, that would be either WP:MUSIC#Songs or, if you object that this is only a proposed guideline, we fall back to the core notability guidelines at WP:N, which call for "significant coverage in reliable sources". Assuming that there isn't enough coverage to extend these articles beyond stubs, the usual procedure is to redirect to the nearest related notable, which in this case is the album. Thomjakobsen 23:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I was inferring in my nomination with WP:DEL#REASON was precisely as Thomjakobsen put it. Spellcast also gave that excellent quote, which I am in total agreement with. Seraphim Whipp 00:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notible, not inherited. Llajwa 16:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all to their appropriate album pages. None are worth articles by themselves. A1octopus 01:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all to album article, as is done with non-notable individual songs, unless significant independent press coverage is found for the individual songs. --Agüeybaná 23:28, 9 October 2007 (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/Tweedle_Dee_%26_Tweedle_Dum&oldid=1136107241"