Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I've Just Begun (Having My Fun)

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 no consensus. A merge discussion should probably be opened instead. If that fails to achieve consensus, the article can be renominated. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've Just Begun (Having My Fun)[edit]

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

The song was not released as a single, did not chart, and basically fails every aspect of WP:NSONG. However, it was recreated by a member after Greatest Hits: My Prerogative was nominated as a good topic. Xwomanizerx (talk) 16:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Since this song did not chart on any major chart, it is not notable according to Wikipedia rules.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 04:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously. When articles grow large enough, it is perfectly normal and even encouraged to split them into seperate articles. The Greatest Hits: My Prerogative article cannot contain all the details regarding this song, which garnered significant criticism and praise. Seriously, when an article is written like this, and referenced like this, it's notable. That a song charts or not is not the be-all end-all of notability. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 08:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But all the information from the iTunes release is included in the Greatest Hits: My Prerogative article, if this is not deleted most of the background section from the album's page will be gone. And I was the one who previously wrote the article, but the notability guidelines read: "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. "I've Just Begun (Having My Fun)" therefore is not notable. Otherwise, there would be articles for every song released. Xwomanizerx (talk) 13:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charting is a sufficient but non-necessary criteria to establish notability. Plenty of songs fail to chart but are still notable, this is one of them. See also WP:NOTPAPER. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So according to you, every song on every album is notable if it's reviewed? Xwomanizerx (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - although the song seems to have a fair amount of coverage it is not notable on its own. Fails WP:NSONG for no covers by a notable article, and much more importantly, no chartings anywhere. So my vote is to delete, sorry. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 01:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per comments made by CLK and because there is nothing particularly or idependently noteworthy of the song. However it should be noted that said nominator Xwomanizerx is inappropriately inviting people to support his nomination. Asking me to comment is one thing but asking for my support of your nomination is against wikipedia rules. I support the merge of this article back into the greatest hits I do not support the nomination of this article for deletion. A merge discussion should have been opened instead. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 01:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry for asking for your support, instead of your comments. I clearly wasn't thinking when I wrote in your talk page, and I had no intention at all to break the rules. Anyway, the content is already in the greatest hits, I don't really understand what the editor who recreated the page was trying to do. Xwomanizerx (talk) 03:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Xwomanizerx appears to be canvassing for delete votes.[1][2][3][4] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I did not know I was breaking the rules. I just wanted opinions from other editors who have gone through a similar situation. But this is just ridiculous. A number of articles have been deleted in the past for failing every aspect of WP:NSONG, why is this an exception? This deletion is not just about this article, because I'll probably have the same problems every time I nominate a good topic in the future. Xwomanizerx (talk) 00:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable for inclusion, and also no extra content for merging into Greatest Hits : My Prerogative. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 16:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think the editor is just wanting to delete this because it is keeping Greatest Hits: My Prerogative from being a good topic. They are cherrypicking pieces of Wikipedia:Notability (music), which like many other pages are just guidelines and do not need to be strictly followed. The song has reception, and shows "significant coverage from third party reliable sources", which is the main policy for notability. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 20:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't considered that, but with the blatant canvassing (only messaged the non-keeps, asked them to support his deletion nomination) taking place above... this bares consideration. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I wrote the article and wanted to nominate it for GA in the past, but since it failed WP:NSONG I just redirected it to the greatest hits page. It was redirected like that for months, but Headbomb recreated it following the nomination. What a coincidence, huh? Xwomanizerx (talk) 00:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to assume bad faith, but it just had to be put out there. I wasn't sure if it was true or not. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 01:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NSONG. This song did not chart anywhere, did not win any awards, did not generate any controversy or impact. There's no notability. Bluesatellite (talk) 23:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability for songs, the refs here are mainly reviews of the album in question, not independent coverage. 155.69.192.176 (talk) 03:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the IP above has no recent editing as well as can be a logged out user.

My bad, forgot the sign in. Fixer23 (talk) 13:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pass WP:GNG, which is a higher policy than WP:NSONGS. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 04:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sorry to be a pest in the quest for a good topic, but hopefully you can get all the singles to good article and then have a better topic all round. I have found 2 further sources that discuss the single's popularity on iTunes as fans thought it was a new track, from Contactmusic and Soulshine. Added to the existing MTV source and the coverage that it receives in the album reviews, and for me that meets the requirements of WP:GNG, rendering the music notability guidelines irrelevant. Mechanical digger (talk) 13:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those other sources aren't really reputable sources though, but I know a lot of articles don't rely on such sources. Fixer23 (talk) 22:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have listed them if I didn't think they were reliable. What's wrong with them? Mechanical digger (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to say although they are not reliable, many articles still list such websites as sources. typo there. They're not reputable because those websites usually just take an existing article and write up a shorter derivative and do not often generate their own content. They act more like mirrors. Fixer23 (talk) 04:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both are reliable, but they contain the same or less information than the MTV article, which is the primary source of the page. Xwomanizerx (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2010 (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.