Martiniturbide ( talk) 21:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC) You evil wikipedians like to delete things, like to delete knowledge. It is so easy just to delete instead of research and improve the articles. That is why nobody loves you.
- 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. Delete, then create fresh redirect that cannot simply be reverted to previously deleted article. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Nine Lives (Def Leppard song) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Previously redirected as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nine Lives (Def Leppard song). Recreated but with no indication of passing WP:NSONG or WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE search fails to come up with anything to establish notability. John B123 ( talk) 19:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. John B123 ( talk) 19:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect and
salt: article has been recreated and re-redirected numerous times since that first AfD, including once less than a month after the AfD. Clearly, Martiniturbide disagrees with that result as they've been the one restoring the article every time (and they have a statement
here expressing as much), but everything that was said in 2009 still holds true, as does everything said in this nomination. Given their history, it seems safe to assume Martiniturbide wouldn't cease their activity even with a renewed consensus, so I supporting salting to prevent further disruption.
QuietHere (
talk |
contributions)
21:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't understand why Wikipedian think that the article is irrelevant while there are other artist that have their singles articles. It is just explained that it does not fit the "notability guidelines" and does not provide details. The deletion of this page is subjective to the wikipedian humor. I disagreed with you "Salting" and I can not find evidence of your statement that "everything that was said in 2009 still holds true".
Martiniturbide (
talk)
22:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- You haven't shown how it passes any of the criteria for
WP:NSONG, nor do any of the sources in the article pass
WP:RS.
Richard3120 (
talk)
19:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Which specific criteria? For me it covers the criteria. The page you link says "..may be notable if it meets at least one of these criteria".
- non-trivial: It is a non-trivial Def Leppard song since it is the first time the band records a duet in a studio record. Also Tim McGraw is a well recognized American country singer.
Martiniturbide (
talk)
12:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Just because its their first duet doesn't automatically make it notable, and neither does the fact it features another notable singer. It's simply your assumption that it being a duet makes it non-trivial. You haven't shown that there is anything else to say about this song apart from those two facts. Richard3120 ( talk) 15:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- You haven't shown how it passes any of the criteria for
WP:NSONG, nor do any of the sources in the article pass
WP:RS.
Richard3120 (
talk)
19:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't understand why Wikipedian think that the article is irrelevant while there are other artist that have their singles articles. It is just explained that it does not fit the "notability guidelines" and does not provide details. The deletion of this page is subjective to the wikipedian humor. I disagreed with you "Salting" and I can not find evidence of your statement that "everything that was said in 2009 still holds true".
Martiniturbide (
talk)
22:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect(/partial merge): Does not currently meet
WP:NSONG, though if I squint there might -- might -- be sufficient review coverage out there for a weak keep given it was a single
with a couple of minorbut without any significant chartings but that'd require source reliability analysis (ie: do the review sources have a clearly identifiable editorial and independent review policy and staffing), digging behind paywalls, and tracking down dead links which I'm not going to do (ie: WP:HEY away). There's occasional 1-2 line qualitative coverage, but is there anything in depth of this particular song? Tim McGraw's guesting is already in the album article. Other highlighted claims to noteworthiness can be included in that paragraph, etc. ~ Hydronium~Hydroxide~ (Talk)~ 06:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Redirection to album is standard practice for songs which don't warrant a full article - see rcat {{ r from song}}. The redirections by SummerPhDv2.0 and Rosguill should also be considered as !votes for that outcome. I don't see that deltetion/recreation/SALT/protection is currently needed as a thin 2009 AFD is not incredibly determinative in 2024 for an article that was in existence for over a decade (no, Martiniturbide shouldn't have recreated it a few months after the AFD, but the time for enforcement was 15 years back), this AFD will clearly provide a more solid set of rationales/consensus, there's not a range of editors/ips edit warring/socking on the creation side, and the recent edit war is not ideal but WP:BRD or AFD should probably have been applied earlier. Retention of edit history with reference to this AFD is also easier for demonstrating that this title should remain a redirect. One would hope that there wouldn't be a deficient article recreation but if there does happen to be, then that's likely still not a case for SALT at that point, but a behavioural problem for WP:ANI. ~ Hydronium~Hydroxide~ (Talk)~ 04:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete I couldn't find anything suggesting WP:NSONG either. I agree WP:SALT would be helpful. If anything turns up that establishes notability better, let it go through WP:AfC. StereoFolic ( talk) 02:54, 22 June 2024 (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.
Martiniturbide ( talk) 21:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC) You evil wikipedians like to delete things, like to delete knowledge. It is so easy just to delete instead of research and improve the articles. That is why nobody loves you.
- 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. Delete, then create fresh redirect that cannot simply be reverted to previously deleted article. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Nine Lives (Def Leppard song) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Previously redirected as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nine Lives (Def Leppard song). Recreated but with no indication of passing WP:NSONG or WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE search fails to come up with anything to establish notability. John B123 ( talk) 19:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. John B123 ( talk) 19:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect and
salt: article has been recreated and re-redirected numerous times since that first AfD, including once less than a month after the AfD. Clearly, Martiniturbide disagrees with that result as they've been the one restoring the article every time (and they have a statement
here expressing as much), but everything that was said in 2009 still holds true, as does everything said in this nomination. Given their history, it seems safe to assume Martiniturbide wouldn't cease their activity even with a renewed consensus, so I supporting salting to prevent further disruption.
QuietHere (
talk |
contributions)
21:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't understand why Wikipedian think that the article is irrelevant while there are other artist that have their singles articles. It is just explained that it does not fit the "notability guidelines" and does not provide details. The deletion of this page is subjective to the wikipedian humor. I disagreed with you "Salting" and I can not find evidence of your statement that "everything that was said in 2009 still holds true".
Martiniturbide (
talk)
22:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- You haven't shown how it passes any of the criteria for
WP:NSONG, nor do any of the sources in the article pass
WP:RS.
Richard3120 (
talk)
19:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Which specific criteria? For me it covers the criteria. The page you link says "..may be notable if it meets at least one of these criteria".
- non-trivial: It is a non-trivial Def Leppard song since it is the first time the band records a duet in a studio record. Also Tim McGraw is a well recognized American country singer.
Martiniturbide (
talk)
12:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Just because its their first duet doesn't automatically make it notable, and neither does the fact it features another notable singer. It's simply your assumption that it being a duet makes it non-trivial. You haven't shown that there is anything else to say about this song apart from those two facts. Richard3120 ( talk) 15:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- You haven't shown how it passes any of the criteria for
WP:NSONG, nor do any of the sources in the article pass
WP:RS.
Richard3120 (
talk)
19:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't understand why Wikipedian think that the article is irrelevant while there are other artist that have their singles articles. It is just explained that it does not fit the "notability guidelines" and does not provide details. The deletion of this page is subjective to the wikipedian humor. I disagreed with you "Salting" and I can not find evidence of your statement that "everything that was said in 2009 still holds true".
Martiniturbide (
talk)
22:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect(/partial merge): Does not currently meet
WP:NSONG, though if I squint there might -- might -- be sufficient review coverage out there for a weak keep given it was a single
with a couple of minorbut without any significant chartings but that'd require source reliability analysis (ie: do the review sources have a clearly identifiable editorial and independent review policy and staffing), digging behind paywalls, and tracking down dead links which I'm not going to do (ie: WP:HEY away). There's occasional 1-2 line qualitative coverage, but is there anything in depth of this particular song? Tim McGraw's guesting is already in the album article. Other highlighted claims to noteworthiness can be included in that paragraph, etc. ~ Hydronium~Hydroxide~ (Talk)~ 06:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Redirection to album is standard practice for songs which don't warrant a full article - see rcat {{ r from song}}. The redirections by SummerPhDv2.0 and Rosguill should also be considered as !votes for that outcome. I don't see that deltetion/recreation/SALT/protection is currently needed as a thin 2009 AFD is not incredibly determinative in 2024 for an article that was in existence for over a decade (no, Martiniturbide shouldn't have recreated it a few months after the AFD, but the time for enforcement was 15 years back), this AFD will clearly provide a more solid set of rationales/consensus, there's not a range of editors/ips edit warring/socking on the creation side, and the recent edit war is not ideal but WP:BRD or AFD should probably have been applied earlier. Retention of edit history with reference to this AFD is also easier for demonstrating that this title should remain a redirect. One would hope that there wouldn't be a deficient article recreation but if there does happen to be, then that's likely still not a case for SALT at that point, but a behavioural problem for WP:ANI. ~ Hydronium~Hydroxide~ (Talk)~ 04:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete I couldn't find anything suggesting WP:NSONG either. I agree WP:SALT would be helpful. If anything turns up that establishes notability better, let it go through WP:AfC. StereoFolic ( talk) 02:54, 22 June 2024 (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.