Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Turn to You (George Jones 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 no consensus. Sandstein 09:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I Turn to You (George Jones song)[edit]
- I Turn to You (George Jones song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Song doesn't meet WP:NSONG, and through searches on News, Highbeam, Books and JStor, nothing but a very few trivial mentions, so it doesn't meet WP:GNG either. I'd say merge to Wine Colored Roses, except there is very little here that could be used in the other article. Onel5969 TT me 22:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep The single meets, WP:NALBUMS #2 "The single or album has appeared on any country's national music chart." and was released on 5 albums.[1] The article is not an orphan, and I have a couple of references to add. 009o9 (talk) 05:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC) Additional comment I've added a couple of references, and again, this is an officially released Single, which falls under WP:NALBUMS, not WP:NSONG (ie a track from an LP, which was not released as a single, would be considered a song). The Single charted, was published for radio and undoubtedly was in radio rotation, seeing how George Jones was already a Grammy Award winner[2] and had 13 number one Coungry hits at that time. Additionally, let's consider WP:DISCRIMINATE, somebody put a lot of work into creating this collection as evidenced by the horizontal infobox in the footer. 009o9 (talk) 06:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - that's why there are two criteria - one for albums (which this is not), and one for singles, which this is. Where you quote from is the generic test, and refers to either albums and singles, before breaking it down into the individual criteria. It makes no sense that EVERY single on a notable album has inherited notability from the album's notability. And while I respect the effort, this is simply about notability. Which this single doesn't qualify. The guideline is quite specific, "A single requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence." Onel5969 TT me 13:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Response the single has its own notability, #26 on the Country charts (passes WP:NALBUMS #2 for notability). According to AllMusic, the song is also notable, because it appeared on five albums including the RIAA Gold Record and four additional greatest hits albums from other major labels (passes WP:NALBUMS #5 for notability). I'm also very sure that the single passes WP:NALBUMS #6 for Top 40 radio rotation, but that would probably have to come from another editor who might own hardcopy for data on those spins. I would not be opposed to a merge, if you did the work, maintained a redirect to the new section (in the album article), retain the references I provided and the single infobox for its informative value. I think it is ridiculous, to nominate these established articles, with complete disregard to how many redlinks it creates. Additionally, simply providing a redirect to the root of the parent article, is not encyclopedic, nor what the reader expects when following a link. 009o9 (talk) 17:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Response - you keep referring to the notability requirements for an album, which this is not. I'm not proposing a merge, since this article has nothing to add to the parent article. Onel5969 TT me 18:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Response The first eight words of WP:NALBUMS are, "All articles on albums, singles or other recordings..." WP:NALBUMS #2 clearly states: "The single or album has appeared on any country's national music chart." I contend that the single infobox has useful information and that a redirect should be provided to a new section in Wine Colored Roses, as a proper redirect landing location. I'm opposed to simply deleting the article and ignoring the redlinks and other consequences that the deletion would create. 009o9 (talk) 18:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Response - and then the guidelines clearly make a distinction between the two. Yet you continue to ignore that. Interesting. Regardless, we've both made our points, let others comment. Onel5969 TT me 18:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- No, I'm not ignoring the "Singles" subsection of WP:NALBUMS, the single passes WP:NRV requirement there. Incidentally, because the song charted, it also passes a portion of WP:NSONGS #1, which has a higher threshold, but again, this is an article about a Single, an independent release, not a song. 009o9 (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Response - and then the guidelines clearly make a distinction between the two. Yet you continue to ignore that. Interesting. Regardless, we've both made our points, let others comment. Onel5969 TT me 18:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Response The first eight words of WP:NALBUMS are, "All articles on albums, singles or other recordings..." WP:NALBUMS #2 clearly states: "The single or album has appeared on any country's national music chart." I contend that the single infobox has useful information and that a redirect should be provided to a new section in Wine Colored Roses, as a proper redirect landing location. I'm opposed to simply deleting the article and ignoring the redlinks and other consequences that the deletion would create. 009o9 (talk) 18:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Response - you keep referring to the notability requirements for an album, which this is not. I'm not proposing a merge, since this article has nothing to add to the parent article. Onel5969 TT me 18:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Response the single has its own notability, #26 on the Country charts (passes WP:NALBUMS #2 for notability). According to AllMusic, the song is also notable, because it appeared on five albums including the RIAA Gold Record and four additional greatest hits albums from other major labels (passes WP:NALBUMS #5 for notability). I'm also very sure that the single passes WP:NALBUMS #6 for Top 40 radio rotation, but that would probably have to come from another editor who might own hardcopy for data on those spins. I would not be opposed to a merge, if you did the work, maintained a redirect to the new section (in the album article), retain the references I provided and the single infobox for its informative value. I think it is ridiculous, to nominate these established articles, with complete disregard to how many redlinks it creates. Additionally, simply providing a redirect to the root of the parent article, is not encyclopedic, nor what the reader expects when following a link. 009o9 (talk) 17:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- 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.