Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where We Belong
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. Cirt (talk) 00:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where We Belong[edit]
- Where We Belong (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)
Note: The rules say I can't withdraw this nomination as another editor has argued for deletion, but I would if possible. It charted shortly after being nominated.—Kww(talk) 20:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Uncharted single, winning no awards, and having no cover versions. Fails WP:NSONGS. Note that its status as apparently not being a stub is an optical illusion, caused by an infobox, an unnecessary reiteration of the band personnel, redundant tracklists, and a navigation box. There's no real meat here, and no sources able to provide real meat.—Kww(talk) 15:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. At the risk of pointing out the obvious, the fact that this single was only released 6 days ago means that it can't have charted yet, although it may well do so later this afternoon when the new UK Singles Chart is announced. With regards to "no sources able to provide real meat", there's a Female First review where it is named "Single of the week", an Altsounds review, a BBC Chart Blog entry about it, and a review from Clash magazine, which should be enough to be going on with. Let's see if it charts in a few hours time.--Michig (talk) 15:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/chart/singles Song has charted at (a disappointing) #32. U-Mos (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Redirect to Where We Belong (album). This has been a non-notable unreleased single for two years now; there's no reason to expect it to become notable now that it's released. It really doesn't matter whether this single charts or not. Charting is only one element of notability, and after more than two years this article still consists only of one quote and the track length in triplicate. Of user:Michig's sources, one hasn't listened to the single ("already in my diary for an iTunes download", FemaleFirst) and three are fan reviews (AltSounds, BBC Chart Blog, Clash Music). If it charts, we can add a footnote to The Betrayed. However, Where We Belong should Redirect to Boyzone's UK #1 album, not to the unreleased album that includes this non-notable track. Yappy2bhere (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Where did the 2 years figure come from? U-Mos (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- From the article history. [1] Yappy2bhere (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah. It would seem User:Wooblz! made a copy/paste move in November. Don't know if that can be sorted at this stage. Article's been around for less than two months. I'd say keep per Michig by the way, nothing to add to that. U-Mos (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bunnuva sitch! You're right! [2] Let me rethink this for a bit. Yappy2bhere (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah. It would seem User:Wooblz! made a copy/paste move in November. Don't know if that can be sorted at this stage. Article's been around for less than two months. I'd say keep per Michig by the way, nothing to add to that. U-Mos (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- From the article history. [1] Yappy2bhere (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't a non-notable unreleased single any longer. Charting at #32 goes a long way towards establishing notability. The sources above are not quite as you state. The Female First clearly indicates that the reviewer has heard it, as it has been played extensively on BBC Radio 1 - it's on the reviewer's iTunes download list, because at the time of the review it hadn't been released. The Altsounds review isn't a "fan review", it's a review on a professional music website by "the owner and president of Altsounds.com", Chris Maguire. The BBC Blog is just, that an official blog on the BBC website, not a fan review. The Clash magazine review is also by a Clash employee. This mischaracterization of sources is very annoying.--Michig (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, he is the president of AltSounds [3], but publishing your opinion on your own website is blogging, however you spin it; you can blog there, too. [4] I'm sure you're mistaken about the BBC blogger [5], though I suppose even the BBC has trouble hiring qualified writers. Robin Murray is not a reviewer for Clash Music. He says he works at the Clash news desk [6], and evidently posted his opinion as a registered user. You are right about Female First ("Whilst it’s clearly getting Radio One airplay due to Mr Watkins’ links with Fearne Cotton, we all love it here at FemaleFirst"), and next time I'll read the reference straight through before becoming annoyed at another editor.
- Where did the 2 years figure come from? U-Mos (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, charting is only an element of notability, though for this single it's the only element it can claim. Tell me, what does this article say that can't be said by adding five words to The Betrayed? Yappy2bhere (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tracklistings, chart placings, and a critical reception section that's waiting to be written. You'd struggle to fit that into 5 words. Somehow, I don't think Stephen Erlewine's writing at Allmusic would be considered to be blog entries. A blog is a blog, a review on a professional website is a review. --Michig (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A blog is self-published opinion. It isn't any less self-published because the bandwidth is paid for out of pocket. What exactly is a "professional website" in your opinion anyway? Arguing that the article is needed for all the buzz that will surely materialize but hasn't yet is bizarre. Surely if this tune has already been pushed out into broadcast, it's also been pushed out to music critics, and this thin reception is all it has to show for it. However, I don't have a crystal ball, and neither do you, which is why you should focus here on what is, and not be distracted by what you hope will be. Again, what is gained by devoting a separate article to this smidgen of content? A Wikipedia article isn't a trophy, a reward for hitting the charts. It is, or at least should be, a functional addition that improves this online encyclopedia. So please, what is the function of this article? Yappy2bhere (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A blog is a weblog. A music website that employs staff and operates on a commercial basis is a professional website. Enough is enough. There is already an admittedly small amount of critical coverage that can be discussed in the article. I think your opinion is clear, so there's no need to keep repeating it.--Michig (talk) 07:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, how is Wikipedia is better for having a separate article for this "admittedly small amount of critical coverage". Or does that even matter? Yappy2bhere (talk) 12:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A blog is a weblog. A music website that employs staff and operates on a commercial basis is a professional website. Enough is enough. There is already an admittedly small amount of critical coverage that can be discussed in the article. I think your opinion is clear, so there's no need to keep repeating it.--Michig (talk) 07:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A blog is self-published opinion. It isn't any less self-published because the bandwidth is paid for out of pocket. What exactly is a "professional website" in your opinion anyway? Arguing that the article is needed for all the buzz that will surely materialize but hasn't yet is bizarre. Surely if this tune has already been pushed out into broadcast, it's also been pushed out to music critics, and this thin reception is all it has to show for it. However, I don't have a crystal ball, and neither do you, which is why you should focus here on what is, and not be distracted by what you hope will be. Again, what is gained by devoting a separate article to this smidgen of content? A Wikipedia article isn't a trophy, a reward for hitting the charts. It is, or at least should be, a functional addition that improves this online encyclopedia. So please, what is the function of this article? Yappy2bhere (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tracklistings, chart placings, and a critical reception section that's waiting to be written. You'd struggle to fit that into 5 words. Somehow, I don't think Stephen Erlewine's writing at Allmusic would be considered to be blog entries. A blog is a blog, a review on a professional website is a review. --Michig (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, charting is only an element of notability, though for this single it's the only element it can claim. Tell me, what does this article say that can't be said by adding five words to The Betrayed? Yappy2bhere (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 20:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't delete this page. It is a useful page. Thanks (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.1.135 (talk) [reply]
- Keep. The article passes WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS, as it's a charting single with coverage in multiple sources which appear reliable and non-trivial enough for my satisfaction. Gongshow Talk 02:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the article was surely premature when it was created, but subsequent events have made much of the above argument obsolete. Keep per Gongshow's rationale above. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per discussion above. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you certain? Yappy2bhere (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Banned user. Pcap ping 09:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep charting single. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:04, 17 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.