Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Only Exception

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 delete. No reliable evidence it has been released yet, fails WP:MUSIC, specifically WP:NSONGS. Jayjg (talk) 05:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Only Exception[edit]

The Only Exception (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This recent article has twice been redirected to the album entry, and twice undone. Under WP:MUSIC it simply does not seem to me notable enough to keep, and I would appreciate the confirmation of the community on this. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tried twice with this article. Never quite sure what to do if the page creator keeps removing the redirect.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair enough. With the result of this AfD at least you will have a clear consensus one way or the other. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I did not create the page, I only changed it into a proper article from the redirect. Oh by the way someone called User:Jake Marr started the original article. Mcrfobrockr (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I assumed it was the original author both times. According to WP:MUSIC a single needs to have considerable notability (be a top ten hit, sell a million, have a notorious video or some such) to warrant an article of its own. Properly this article should be redirected back to the album as noted above. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It'll have to be made sooner or later, so keep it to make it easier for readers, because if you redirect to Brand New Eyes they'll have to go through the whole page just to read about a tiny bit of this single. They'll probably also clicked on a link from Brand New Eyes to the article and will be kind of annoyed if it redirects, so I say keep. Mcrfobrockr (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm gonna go ahead and say keep. Even though WP:MUSIC suggests that only the most notable of songs should have their own pages, most of the artists and albums I could think of to check have links to pages for every song on the album, and many of them would not pass WP:MUSIC in my opinion. This to me is beyond WP:OTHERSTUFF, and suggests that in fact the broad community consensus has changed to support the inclusion of individual song pages from notable albums. I also think there's snow in the forecast here. Ivanvector (talk) 09:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I'm trying to work out. I'll be interested to see what the outcome is.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above argument is simply a case of WP:OTHERSTUFF. Just because articles for other less notable songs exist, does not mean one should exist for this song. WP:MUSIC remains the same, as does GNG. With no assertion of notability yet, the article should remain a redirect. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right about WP:OTHERSTUFF, and I hope you don't mind that I copy-pasted your signature onto your comment, since it was missing. To be honest, I'm neutral about this article in particular, but I think it is very likely to be innocently recreated by another editor, who we will immediately bite with a CSD G4. It may as well survive, based on WP:SNOW. I can see how my comment about the trend of not-very-notable songs being included is out of place here, but the trend is worth noting. WP policies are based on consensus, and consensus can change. Ivanvector (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So we should keep this to avoid some newbie wrongly re-creating it? That's ridiculous. This is not snowball at all, in fact, I'm failing to see a strong argument to keep it. kiac. (talk-contrib) 13:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, merge or redirect. An article on an individual song should be a rarity, occasioned by specific notability for the song, not the album or the artist. Certainly not before release. Sussexonian (talk) 01:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I vote to keep. 222.155.128.37 (talk) 04:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a poll. We do not count votes. Please base your argument on wikipedia policy and guidelines only, not your opinion . Nouse4aname (talk) 09:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I've been waiting for someone to make this page for about a month now, finally it happened. So predictable. It needs to pass WP:NSONG with third-party sources, which it currently doesn't. All that is currently said can be covered in the album page - please source it. Do we really need AfD's for matters like this? A simple bold redirect would suffice. kiac. (talk-contrib) 16:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it does have third party sources sourced in it. Mcrfobrockr (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A dubious (Ustream, reliable???) streaming video interview and 3 self-published links from their website? There's no need to defend this, it will be back up before you know it. Just be patient. kiac. (talk-contrib) 00:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should watch the video instead, instead of just saying it's not reliable. She does state things that support the statement. You can't get much more official than someone who is actually in the band. 122.57.155.98 (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Official does not mean reliable. Two totally different things. She can give us a great observation on how great rainbows are for all I care, but it does not make it reliable or unreliable. That video is not making this article notable. kiac. (talk-contrib) 13:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you think you're so smart why don't you try to find better sources? 122.57.155.98 (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thus the reason behind the redirect - To wait for sufficient sources to arise. Sheesh. kiac. (talk-contrib) 13:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Typical Australians... 219.89.23.130 (talk) 04:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What are you insinuating??? Racist pig. kiac. (talk-contrib) 04:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that it has been boldly redirected twice, and the redirect reverted twice. Hence this AfD Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reckon we should keep the article, I agree with Ivanvector, on the number of music articles which do not meet the guidelines, but it wouldn't do any harm by leaving it here? MadamLouvre (talk) 03:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because they exist, does not mean they should exist. It has no bearing on the existence of this article. This article will come in time, as of now, it is not notable. kiac. (talk-contrib) 13:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Kiac, people are just voicing their opinions, why do you have to reply to all of them just to argue? I've noticed this on all of the editors that have said keep. Mcrfobrockr (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, he is making valid points. This isn't the forum for an argument. He's right that the sources fail to meet WP:RS. That wasn't my point, and I maintain that it's a snowball, but I'll back off on that. I'll say redirect, but that's actually already been done and reverted twice, so this is looking like an edit war. The solution is to redirect it again, and if it is reverted again, see dispute resolution. That is, unless you want the info in the article to be deleted forever. Ivanvector (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't attacking the editors, or doing anything wrong. If someone is making pointless contributions, I am happy to state it, and refute it. People don't do that enough on Wikipedia, which is why we get extremists doing their own thing much too often. kiac. (talk-contrib) 13:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the single isn't even released yet. The page should be deleted for now, and can be re-created once the single is released. Bramblestar (ShadowClan Leader) (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Bramblestar "the single isn't even released yet." Actually it is, well over here in New Zealand, its been getting a lot of radio airplay. Mcrfobrockr (talk) 04:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, I live in America, where the single won't be released until April. Thanks for telling me about the New Zealand release. Bramblestar (ShadowClan Leader) (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also I noticed that the article of Brick by Boring Brick, the single released before this one, was also created before its release date by someone called Kiac, who is now opposing this one. I wonder why that is. [1] Mcrfobrockr (talk) 05:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing Alternative Press sourcing a release date for this single? And if you look at the revision 7 minutes later, you will also see a link to MTV. Furthermore, if you do a little investigating, you will notice that that was a compromise, as the article had been created a long time before under numerous different (incorrect) page titles. Mind you, that was a month from release, this page is 4 months from release. Ps. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS again. kiac. (talk-contrib) 13:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How many times do I have to say that it has already been released? Or if not that, it has been receiving a lot of radio airplay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcrfobrockr (talk • contribs) 00:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can say it as many times as you like. We still have no Reliable Sources. Why should we believe you? It hasn't hit the charts, so why should we just take your word for it having airplay? Because I highly doubt that. kiac. (talk-contrib) 01:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I don't care if you don't believe, me but it has had received radio airplay on The Edge FM Mcrfobrockr (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect - Article doesn't demonstrate why this particular song is notable enough to merit a separate article, per WP:NSONGS, "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article". Not helped by the fact that it hasn't been released yet and only one source cited is independent of the artist involved. Some of those voting to keep this article seem to be able to predict the future. Since I lack this skill, I'm unable to consider how notable the subject will become. Adambro (talk) 19:15, 25 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Only_Exception&oldid=1146032796"