Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gasoline (Skillet song)

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 to Skillet (album). (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gasoline (Skillet song)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Another non-notable song created by an editor who doesn't seem to understand WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I'll not go through all these nominations to post the same response, but WP:NSONG states "Songs that do not rise to notability for an independent article should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song." I see no reason why the individual songs cannot or should not be redirected to their album articles. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- In no way is it a suitable or likely search term. The song was released a decade ago and has never merited an article or creation of an article. The creator is simply trying to create empty articles about two specific bands. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Redirects are cheap, and readers who are familiar with Wikipedia article naming convention would not find this article title inherently "unlikely". I think you'll find that there are in fact a great many song-title redirects, with titles largely formatted like this one, in the project. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am quite familiar with the use of redirects, but this article didn't exist a few hours ago and no one thought it needed one let alone a redirect. It's simply rewarding the odd editor. Unless the editor is blocked, or possibly the redirect is locked (since I suspect socking is possible), it's going to be a problem. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - This isn't my topic space, by far, but let's just say that I'm not quite willing to assume bad faith about an editor merely for creating stubs of non-notable songs by a notable artist, and leave it at that. Regardless of how we got here, I stand by the guideline suggestion that this be converted to a redirect. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        That's OK. An admin has blocked him partially for that behaviour and partially for not explaining why. As long as there's no chance of new editors restoring to a state before a potential redirect, I'd be OK with it. I'd also be OK with deleting the edit history, but I won't get greedy. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 19:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:25, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Skillet (album) - Song is mentioned on the tracklisting so makes sense to redirect there. –Davey2010^Talk 17:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Album - For the group of Skillet songs nominated for deletion by Walter, there are some extenuating circumstances that prevent a perfect solution but we can follow standard policies. User:Elchezinazo created all the song articles while probably being unaware of notability standards, and has been reprimanded accordingly. Now we have a bunch of weak articles. I believe that the song titles are possible search terms for WP users, so these song articles can be redirected to the respective album articles. An imperfect but painless solution. (My votes on the other AfD's will link to this one so I do not repeat the text needlessly.) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll only comment on this once. I gave a detailed explanation of notability criteria at 23:31, April 10, 2018 (UTC). This spate of article creations occurred three days later. If the editor couldn't understand it due to language limitations, the editor shouldn't have been working on the English project. The explanation was presented though. I had also nominated an earlier articled for deletion via PROD, but again, no explanation given as to why the PROD was deleted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You could possibly request speedy deletion #G5 for articles created by a blocked user. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The block came because of the creation of these articles. The songs are clearly not notable and should 1) never have been created, 2) have been quietly PRODed after creation, but we're here because of a disruptive editor. Instead of returning them to dust from which they came, we're leaving a (cheap) redirect. It's like the time an editor took every song written by a band and created redirects to the band article. It's bureaucracy that we retain this sort of thing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect you're getting uncomfortably close to using this AfD process to protest much bigger WP issues. These little song articles are unfortunate but mostly harmless except for taking up server space. Consider proposing a reformed redirect process at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) or someplace similar. As for the actual AfDs currently at hand, the "search term" argument remains valid. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Close? Sorry. I meant to do a gig all over the line while waving a red flag at the ignorance of the guideline and those who created it. I'll see if I can do better in the next set of AfDs I have to do as a result of an editor who doesn't want to follow WP:N and then get to deal with competing "guidelines". Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Fails GNG, but is a plausible search term. Sergecross73 msg me 03:13, 17 April 2018 (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.