Talk:Just Another Night (Icona Pop song)

On 5 February 2014, it was proposed that this article be moved to Just Another Night. The result of the discussion was not moved.

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 February 2014. The result of the discussion was redirect to This Is... Icona Pop.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. The clear consensus is that this recent song does not demonstrate notability sufficient for primary topic status. Xoloz (talk) 02:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just Another Night (Icona Pop song) → Just Another Night – No need for "Icona Pop song" 82.24.119.9 (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - WP:RECENT is a song by Swedish synthpop duo Icona Pop released worldwide on January 29, 2014 notable? Just Another Night (Ian Hunter song) Billboard Hot 100 No. 68 and Just Another Night (Mick Jagger song) are from the 17th Century in Wikipedia terms, but are more notable in print sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per In ictu oculi, and per the many songs of that title listed on allmusic.com. I have created a disambiguation page at Just Another Night. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose I see no reason why the disambiguation page should be merged into a hatnote onto this article, the nominator provides no rationale. -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and move Just Another Night to Just Another Night (disambiguation). If these other songs are notable, prove it. So far their claims to notability are only inherited, i.e., by being on notable albums by notable artists. But most songs aren't notable, so it's not a good idea to presume any are. --BDD (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is the only song on the dab page sufficiently notable to have its own article. Given that this is so just a month after it was first released, while the others have been around for decades and never-the-less did not yet achieve article level notability, this use is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --B2C 21:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to have to note this but I hope this !vote will be disregarded due to the obvious fallacy. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Not having an article ≠ not notable. Of course something just released is going have more interest and more retrievable sources than songs from years ago. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When should we assume a topic that doesn't have an article is notable? Should we give all such topics the benefit of the doubt, or only those that meet certain criteria? --BDD (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And having an article ≠ notable. You give the benefit of the doubt when it's brought up in discussions such as this. So you're saying a song that reaches no. 50 on a music chart a month ago and has an article is clearly more notable than a song that reached the top 10 on the same chart 30 years ago only because it doesn't have an article? Now that this article has been redirected due to notability concerns and Just Another Night (Mick Jagger song) created into a stub article, I guess that article should be moved to Just Another Night, because according to you that song is notable now that it has an article and the other isn't notable because it doesn't. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, actually (to the last sentence). Is everyone alright with the redirection of this page? I'm not saying the existence of an article means a topic is automatically notable, or we wouldn't have AfD. I am saying that a topic with an article should be presumed notable, or it should go to AfD. I'm saying we shouldn't speculate and make naming decisions based on articles that do not, and may never, exist. Thank you for creating an article on the Jagger song, by the way—we all benefit from that. --BDD (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:BDD I'm sorry to say this but "make naming decisions based on articles that do not, and may never, exist" is opposed to WP:DAB which makes article content the basis of decisions not whether article content is merged into or forked out of other articles. Whether a single is in an album or standalone is irrelevant. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:SONGDAB, and the Mick Jagger, Cat Stevens, and Ian Hunter songs seem notable. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should create WP:PAFD, Potential Articles for Discussion, to gauge the notability of hypothetical articles. I'm only half joking; if we're really going to make these sorts of decisions, there should be a place for structured discussion instead of uncritical acceptance of editors' opinions. --BDD (talk) 20:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per songdab. There is a certain irony for those arguing primary topic when the article is up for AfD. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Premature at best. And that applies to the AfD too. Neither ever had any likelihood of success IMO, and that's good, as it's hard to see how either could have improved the encyclopedia if successful. Andrewa (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

What has happened to the Just Another Night (Icona Pop song) content?

The article we are having a RM about has been blanked and redirected. and Nothing has been added to the album. Where's the discussion? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here, if you'd like, though so far no one seems interested being the R in BRD. --BDD (talk) 04:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to be the R I think, we shouldn't just blank+redirect sourced articles. Despite my own feeling that en.wp's coverage of songs has a large WP:UNDUE/WP:RECENT issue re the world before 2005, this pop song is no less notable than any other 2014 song article being created User:Andreas81 is a new and infrequent User, why the hurry to blank+redirect? In ictu oculi (talk) 20:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The song fails WP:NSONGS and WP:GNG (one source explaining a "free release" is not a sourced article). There is nothing to include into This Is... Icona Pop other than "It is the 5th single". As long as the song doesn't chart, we don't need an article. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 21:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, your indirect comment to say Andreas is a newbie and therefore was bitten is ridiculous. Andreas knows articles about songs have to be created when they meet the minimal requierments of notability. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 21:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you are the editor who blanked + redirected. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLANK and WP:REDIRECT are not the same thing. Assuming you are not the IP 112.201.190.86. I WP:AFD it due to lack of independence. If you have any problem with me "blanking + redirecting" articles, go with an admin. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 23:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No editor would need to "go with an admin" in order to revert your blanking and redirect of a sourced article. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't understand your comment about IP 112.201.190.86, now I see that an editor from the Philippines has restored the article - good for him/her. I would suggest that you use the AfD process for sourced articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]