Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Out of Control Raging Fire

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 all per consensus. The titles of the songs will be redirected to their respective articles for search capabilities. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Control Raging Fire[edit]

Out of Control Raging Fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Doesn't seem to be a notable duet. First pair of duet partners recorded but did not release it; second pair of duet partners released it but it failed to chart. I would have merged this to an album, if not for the fact that two different sets of artists have recorded it. A search for sources turned up nothing notable about this song at all. (Note to closing admin: If this page is deleted, please delete Category:Dawn Sears songs as well.)

Also listing other Patty Loveless songs which aren't notable because they didn't chart, and don't seem to be the subject of any sources:

(Note: I tried redirecting these songs to their respective albums but my redirects were undone, so I'm listing them here.)

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fail to understand why one person's opinion should have an article deleted. Patty Loveless is a major recording artist, and the pages that he wishes to be deleted were all recordings released as singles by her and her recording company. If we are to have a complete discography, with the released singles, then we should have a complete set, as how the songs performed on the charts is really immaterial. Again, just because one person feels that they are insignficant, that does not mean that other people feel the same. Loveless has millions of fans and they should be able to resarch all of her single releases, not just those that one person believes are significant, and others not available that they feel as insigificant... Bwmoll3 (talk) 03:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going with my own personal opinion at all, but rather the general consensus of several Wikipedia editors, and of at least one official Wikipedia policy. (Also, I happen to be a big fan of Loveless' music.) Please read Wikipedia:MUSIC#Albums and songs, which states (in part): "Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article... Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists... are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; permanent stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Personally, I think that it would be fairly difficult to find any reliable, specific info on any song that was released as a single but didn't chart; most of the time, I have trouble finding such info for any song that wasn't a Top 20 on the country charts. (There are occasional exceptions; see The Bumper of My SUV as an example.) The pages on Loveless' albums and discography already contain sufficient info for most of these songs; therefore, the songs themselves mostly don't warrant separate pages. I would recommend keeping the #1's and maybe most of the Top 10 hits, and merging the rest into the pages on the albums. The songs that didn't chart at all are probably better off deleted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that if you didn't WANT to delete them, we wouldn't be here. Saying it's because you are an editor is irrelevant. As I said before, if Wikipedia wants to be complete and be the source of information about Ms. Loveless' music, then having her songs listed at the discretion of the editor is not the way to go. Censoring information benifits no one. Also just because you can't find information, doesn't mean others can not. I have known Ms Loveless and her husband for over 20 yers and I aware of the pride she puts into each song she selects to be included on each of her albums, as well as some of the background which I included on the pages I createdd. Either be complete and accurate, or have none of them there and let that information be available elsewhere on the web as it exists with varying degrees of accuracy. Bwmoll3 (talk) 09:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete them all. Each article consists of a few sentences and they will fit on their albums' pages; no information need be lost to humanity. Blast Ulna (talk) 04:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect with/without merge to the articles on each song's respective album, as plausible search terms, and so that while "no information need be lost", it makes said information easier to find. -- saberwyn 05:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another option for The Boys Are Back in Town (song) (as there are now at least 2 songs and a television episode by this title (Patty Loveless', Thin Lizzy's song, and an Entourage episode would be to rewikilink all the Patty Loveless links to this title, redirect to The Boys Are Back In Town, move The Boys Are Back In Town to The Boys Are Back In Town (Thin Lizzy), and restructure the unqualified page as a 3 item disambiguation pointing to the Thin Lizzy song, the album for the Loveless song, and the Entourage episode list respectively. But then again, that's a lot of legwork. -- saberwyn 05:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've already tried to redirect these song articles -- at least twice -- only to have User:Bwmoll3 undo my work. Also, I don't think that "Out of Control Raging Fire" could be directed to either Patty's album or Tracy's, since the latter was released as a single, but the former was cut first. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 06:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, if this discussion closes as a merge and redirect, you'll have a bit of consensus to back you up, and if neccesary, I'm sure an admin could lock those redirects. As for the duet, redirect to one article and put a dablink in for the other. -- saberwyn 06:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No good reason given to delete these articles. If your redirect is being disputed discuss it on the talk page, don't nominate for deletion in retaliation. Catchpole (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I couldn't help but notice that this does seem to be a bit of a retaliation.... Apparantley he believes that it's either his way or the highway....Bwmoll3 (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is not what you said before..... "...therefore, the songs themselves mostly don't warrant separate pages. I would recommend keeping the #1's and maybe most of the Top 10 hits...."

You stated you wanted to delete songs other than ones that didn't chart. Why is it that YOU are choosing which ones the delete or not delete? Either be complete or just delete them all.. Bwmoll3 (talk) 01:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're putting words in my mouth. I said "...and merging the rest into the pages on the albums. The songs that didn't chart at all are probably better off deleted." I never said I wanted anything else deleted, just the songs that didn't chart. Andy why do you think that I'm going off my own opinion entirely? If a song didn't chart, it's most likely non-notable per WP:MUSIC. "Keep Your Distance" et al. didn't chart; therefore, it doesn't deserve its own page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you look at what you wrote earlier on this page, I copied and pasted a direct quote from you. Those are words you typed, not I. Bwmoll3 (talk) 02:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It implies you want to be the arbiter of what you believe should be kept or not kept.. Why is it that this is even being discussed for deletion? Because you became upset that I reversed your redirects before, so now we are here? If that is the case, then just delete it all ... I don't have time for your childish nonsense and your little power trip...Bwmoll3 (talk) 02:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still don't see how on earth you think that I suggested deleting other song pages. All I said was "the songs that didn't chart at all" are better off deleted; NOT any other song's page. Also, I am not on a "power trip", and I have no idea why you feel that I am. I am simply trying to follow the official Wikipedia policy as established at WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't read your own words that you wrote earler at the top of this page, ".... I would recommend keeping the #1's and maybe most of the Top 10 hits....", I feel very sorry for you. "I would recommend..." mans that You are deciding...and it certainly sounds like a power trip... Who gives you that right?. And yes, the fact is that because I deleted your redirects and stated that these songs are not "insigificant", and clashed with your opinion, that you, in turn, selected the articles for deletion. That, my friend, is acting on a power trip and acting out of spite because you disagreed with my opinion.. which happens to be different than yours. Bwmoll3 (talk) 08:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is not acting out of spite. I'm not asking for deletion because my "precious redirects" were undone; rather, I'm asking for deletion because the songs aren't freaking notable per WP:MUSIC. It's that simple. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 12:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what gives me the right? Oh, only the fact that I'm a Wikipedia user. That's what AfD is about -- someone gives an opinion that a page should be deleted, and a discussion is held wherein others agree or disagree with that opinion. Clearly you're ticked about having your pages listed at AfD, and now you're taking it all out on me because you think I'm some sort of egomaniacal deletionist. "I would recommend" is ONLY A SUGGESTION; it's not like I said "we MUST delete all the pages for songs that aren't Top Tens". Clearly you're misunderstanding me and vice versa. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 12:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MUSIC is not official Wikipedia policy. Catchpole (talk) 07:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's a shot to the foot. Never edit while asleep! Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 12:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then I strongly suggest that you withdraw this entire charade and put everything back the way you found it, before going off to recommend these pages for deletion because you didn't like that I reveresed your redirects. Bwmoll3 (talk) 13:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not so much that you reversed my redirects, it's more because the songs aren't notable per WP:MUSIC. As I stated on your talk page, it's common for a non-notable song to be redirected to the album it's on. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 13:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutley correct.. WP:MUSIC directly states "... While it is not policy, ...." This is not trying to redefine the meaning of "is". It is simply a Guideline.... This is twice now that misstatements have been made by User:TenPoundHammer to justify his opinion...Bwmoll3 (talk) 12:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • OKAY I can see about three entries by users other than Hammers and Bwmoll on here, one keep, and two redirect/deletes. That is a consensus of sorts but it is not a very strong one. Try to keep your disputes succint by not repeating yourself, or better yet by not having them :) SGGH speak! 17:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I submit that there is -no- consensus here and that things be put back the way they were before all of this started Bwmoll3 (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all: Per WP:MUSIC, each song is not notable and each consist of a few brief statements that have no hope of being expanded upon. It would work just as well under their respective album pages. Seicer (t | c) 17:44, 22 February 2008 (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/Out_of_Control_Raging_Fire&oldid=1138192246"