Talk:Melt My Heart to Stone

Proposed deletion?

• I don't see how the information in the article doesn't qualify as significant coverage. And worst-case scenario, couldn't it just be redirected to 19 (Adele album) instead of being flat-out deleted? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 08:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • For starters, Calvin999 left me a warning for deprodding this article, even though WP:DEPROD clearly states that any user, even the creator of the article, can deprod an article (a PROD and an AFD are not the same thing). But more importantly, I suggested that the article could possibly be redirected to 19 (Adele album) as a worst-case scenario...but then it was redirected only hours later with no kind of discussion? I mean, SNUGGUMS even said him/herself in his/her edit summary that the sources are reliable (btw, why was Calvin removing sourced information? (And what didn't happen?)) I invite the aforementioned users (and anyone else) to have a discussion about this (and a calm discussion; thus, edit summaries like this aren't helpful). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 20:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Sources were reliable, but six or seven for an article is not enough. I removed info about a non-existent music video because if there wasn't one, then there's nothing to say. It's like saying "Adele went to the Grammy's but didn't perform". if it didn't happen, we don't include it. You clearly don't know the Music eligibility and notability criteria and shouldn't be editing if you think the 5 sentence article you produced was sufficient. I've seen articles which are longer and bigger than this get deleted.  — Calvin999 20:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Okay, you need to chill out with the character assassination. I have been creating music-related articles for years without dispute. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 20:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
      • And it would be nice if you refrained from redirecting the article while the discussion is ongoing. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 20:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) Excuse me? What "character assassination"? If you've been creating articles like this then you shouldn't be editing. And just because you've been doing "for years", doesn't make you right or better than anyone else. If you have been editing music articles "for years", then you should know that this article completely and utterly failed WP:GNG and WP:SONGS. I can go through the criteria and paste it here and show you how it fails everything to reinforce it to your more so if you like? And there is no further discussion to be had, you have no case here.  — Calvin999 20:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
        • What's more, your reverts have re-introduced unsourced info. Source for it being a promo single? Source for the blue-eyed soul genre? It never got a music video, so why are you stating it? It didn't get one so there's no point even mentioning it. I'm concerned for the other articles you've been creating.  — Calvin999 20:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Epert, you've misinterpreted my edit summary. My comment wasn't so much about the reliability of the sources used as it was the coverage that reliable sources give. WP:NSONGS states the following:

• "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work. Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created."

• It also says that "a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album."

• With this said, the article doesn't meet notability criteria as it is unlikely to grow beyond a stub. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• See, now, that is the way a response should be given in a discussion like this. Anyway, I generally avoid creating articles about non-charting promotional singles, but I still feel as though the article edges past notability standards. I won't lose sleep if you still want to redirect it though. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 22:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• I will redirect this to the album. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Erpert First, I asked you above if you wanted me to go through the criteria, but you didn't respond, so don't give it all the "that is the way a response should be given in a discussion like this" rubbish. It was you who started reverting in the first place. Secondly, this comment "I won't let anyone else edit the article? I'm sorry; I don't recall telling anyone not to edit it." on the Incidents page shows concern: do you not understand that constantly reverting other editors is a form of not letting anyone else make edits to the page? That is WP:OWN. I was getting angry because you wasn't listening, I repeated myself multiple times. If anything, you was provoking me. I've taken this page off my watch list, and I won't look at or respond to any nonsensical replies.  — Calvin999 07:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)