Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Name Is Jonas

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. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My Name Is Jonas[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGS. The current article's only sources for the song's notability are two "best Weezer songs" lists in which the song appears.

At the time of nomination, the sources are: the Weezer biography (which predictably covers almost every Weezer song, and does not prove this song's notability); the official Weezer site (fails " sources are independent of the artist and label" requirement of WP:NSONGS); two lists of the best Weezer songs (unimpressive, considering the narrow scope of such lists); a source reporting that My Chemical Romance played the song with Weezer once (possibly not even worth mentioning in the article, and not grounds for notability); a source reporting that the song is included in a video game (not grounds for notability); a source reporting that the Thermals covered the song (not grounds for notability); and a source reporting that a (non-notable) Weezer covers band covered the song (duh; not grounds for notability).

I think the article should be redirected to Weezer (1994 album), where the subject can be covered sufficiently. Popcornduff (talk) 11:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC) Popcornduff (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per arguments I've given at Talk:My Name Is Jonas#Merge proposal. Kokoro20 (talk) 02:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm not a huge fan of Weezer, so I pulled up the song to see I'd recognize it as an initial indicator of notability. I certainly recognized it - right away, and not just because of the Lonelygirl15 character. I am sure I've not heard most of Weezer's singles in comparison. Like the ones, if any, from that album with the fat guy from LOST on it. WTF was that about? Anyway, so I guess this song is a "fan favorite."[1] Though not a single, the song does seem to be sufficiently notable to merit a separate article. Remember this is one of many articles covering this band, and its a logical organization scheme that has been developed over time.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Milowent: It's definitely a well-known song to people who've heard of Weezer, but we need multiple non-trivial sources to prove its notability independent of the album it comes from. I also don't see anything in the article that's useful that couldn't be covered in the album article. I'm not sure what your point is about a "logical organization scheme that has been developed over time"; it seems to me a more logical organization would be to remove redundant parts. Popcornduff (talk) 10:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is already multiple non-trivial sources for the song that are independent of the album (at least, not from album reviews). And what about "userfulness"? That same argument could be used for many articles that would survive AFD. Kokoro20 (talk) 13:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about the "logical organization" point. Popcornduff (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for "multiple non-trivial sources", the excerpt from Music: What Happened is so far the only convincing non-trivial source in the article IMO. We need more than one. Popcornduff (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about the About.com and Diffuser articles? In fact, it's the only non-single song listed in the song ranking in the Diffuser article. Surely what's already cited in the article must give it some kind of significance. Kokoro20 (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because they only appear in those articles in lists of Weezer songs, I consider those sources trivial. As I said in the article's talk page, if those were lists of the best 90s songs, for example, they would have more weight. Perhaps other editors will disagree. Popcornduff (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 2 September 2014 (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.