Talk:Politics, Religion and Her (song)

Latest comment: 14 years ago by RL0919 in topic Merge proposal

Merge proposal

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The consensus seems to clearly favor redirection and there is no recent discussion, so I am closing this discussion and redirecting both articles per the request made by TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) at WP:AN for an uninvolved admin. That request also suggested protecting the redirects to prevent further edit warring, which I will do if either redirect is reverted. --RL0919 (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Discussion

edit

Per WP:NSONGS, "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts[…] are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article[.]" That's exactly what we've got here. I believe that this should stay redirected, as should the similar nanostub High-Tech Redneck (song). Discussion with the page's author has gotten nowhere, as he considers a redirect "restrictive." Note that both songs were nominated for deletion in the past (see above) with no consensus to delete, but a slight consensus to merge. I would like to know what the community thinks of both of these articles. (Note that the targets in question both explicitly mention the writers, song lengths and peak positions of each song, which was pretty much all that was contained in either article.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 16:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

  • It is canvassing, not necessarily inappropriate canvassing though. The note at WT Not (music) could have been better. In any case, it is important to note here, for disclosure purposes. –xenotalk 17:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC) I re-jigged the note at WT Notability (music) to be more neutral. –xenotalk 18:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Keep as redirected Redirect both. I was canvassed as well. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Note: For reference, this is what High-Tech Redneck looked like before redirection, and this is what Politics, Religion and Her looked like. Note also that HTR was never touched after its AFD, and the only edit made to PRaH after its AFD was a user adding a link to Tony Martin (songwriter). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 17:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • I was notified of this discussion by TPH as I was a participant in the AFD. The no consensus result is really a split between whether it be redirected or merged with no appetite to delete it. Let's examine the contents of the article. The song charted, and had a video that was popular on CMT. Note that only the billboard chart position is the only piece of referenced information. That falls well short of what would be justifiable as a separate article. If the unreferenced bit about the video is deemed important, it can certainly be merged into the album article -- Whpq (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
    • REDIRECT BOTH. I only participated in the AFD for Politics, Religion and Her (song), but both song articles suffer from the same problem. And the same solution of redirect is appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Disclosure: All participants at the AFDs for this and High-Tech Redneck (song) have been notified of this discussion by TPH at my suggestion. This is appropriate canvassing ('friendly notice'). If I could just remind everyone to please make it explicit whether your comments apply to the Politics, Religion and Her song, to the Hi-Tech Redneck song, or both. Thanks, –xenotalk 18:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • MergeRedirect As always, I favor merging articles about singles into the parent album. I would like to see WP:NSONGS made much more restrictive, and only have articles about songs when there are multiple notable singles by multiple artists. Otherwise, keeping them separate is just a magnet for trivia and redundancy.—Kww(talk) 18:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Keep as redirect The song was a slightly-low charting single and there's not much about this song to need an article. Heck the only thing that could make this song notable at is it's chart activity and video aired on CMT. That isn't a lot. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Merge/redirect - there is no reason for this article to exist, because the limited info given can be found elsewhere in Wikipedia, such as the artist page or album page. CloversMallRat (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Merge/Redirect as proposed in both cases - #28 on Billboard makes the present song only a minor hit and I doubt much more can be said than has been said about the song in this article (which isn't a lot). Ditto the other song. The albums both appear to be relatively notable, however, going by their articles and it is in these that the information contained in these two articles belongs, IMO. --Jubilee♫clipman 01:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Merge/redirect. The problem in this case is people feel charting is a magic bullet to guarantee an article. I've seen too many perma stub articles pass AfD because they hit number 98 on a chart no one has heard of. Rehevkor 05:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Redirect. There simply isn't enough here to warrant a separate article, and considering the song only reached #28, I doubt there ever will be. Its songwriters and peak position are already included in the album's article, so there's nothing to merge. Eric444 (talk) 08:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.