Talk:Love Wins (song)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Country music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Country music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to country music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Country musicWikipedia:WikiProject Country musicTemplate:WikiProject Country musicCountry music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move 20 October 2018

The following is a closed 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The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. During the discussion, Love Wins was turned into a disambiguation page, which negated my argument entirely. Therefore I see no reason to keep this open. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Love Wins (song) → Love Wins – The phrase "Love Wins" currently redirects to Obergefell v. Hodges, which does not mention the phrase "Love wins" at any point, except in reference to a book that is cited as a source. Even then, "Love Wins" is only a WP:PTM for that book. This means that the song is the only exact use of that title. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:54, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: per Ten Pound Hammer. --Kailash29792 (talk) 12:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy support of course. No hatnote would even be necessary. Red Slash 23:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rob Bell published a NYT bestseller titled Love Wins. Srnec (talk) 00:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And that can be addressed if/when the book gets an article. Until then, people looking for the book can be hatnoted to his article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine by me, but I wonder if a DAB page would be better, with links to Rob Bell and Obergefell v. Hodges. Srnec (talk) 02:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support for the reasons given. If/When another work with this title warrants an article, the title could be re-evaluated, but in the current environment there is no other page that would be confused with the song if its page title were unambiguated. Songsteel (talk) 00:47, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, merge to Cry Pretty (album), 110 in the US charts, non-notable. As for GBook searches Love Wins (book) redirect to Rob Bell seems to be by far the main topic for https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22love+wins+was%22&num=10 . This barely charting WP:CURRENT single doesn't deserve to occupy a generic title space. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As per @Srnec: the current redirect is actually mentioned as a footnote in the Obergefell v. Hodges case article, but that redirect should really go to Debbie Cenziper as author. That with two more songs gives us 5 subjects on the redirect, so temporarily converted to dab. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:00, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@In ictu oculi: Are you crazy? How high the song is on the charts is immaterial. The song is on five separate charts, it was just released so it's bound to go higher, and the article has plenty of reliable third-party sources. A merge would be counterproductive. Give the article a WP:CHANCE. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not crazy, I'm looking here at an article primarily about the sales figures of a brief entertainment product - not a word on the song itself, and the sales figures, while not a total chart bomb indicate that this song had it's chance for 5 weeks and is heading back to nowhere. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:54, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Not a word on the song itself"? Then why is there a full paragraph on the writing of the song, and another full paragraph on reviews of it? Again, the song's only been out for five weeks. There is simply way too much content to merge at the moment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, now that there is a dab page. No evidence the song is the primary meaning and lots of evidence that Bell's book is. No need, however, to merge the song. Srnec (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Srnec: The book doesn't have a page though. There's no evidence that it should, either. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irrevelant ; "The book doesn't have a page though" is not a valid argument in title discussions. The book clearly passes WP:NBOOK, it's simply that we don't have many book editors and there is no need to WP:FORK because, as just said, "The book doesn't have a page though" is not a valid argument in title discussions. . In ictu oculi (talk) 07:57, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support on the basis the song is the only topic with a WP article and the book wouldn't get the base title even if it was WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as it has a WP:SUBTITLE that is the WP:COMMONNAME. Flooded with them hundreds 09:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there is a proper DAB now for this phrase; the song is not sufficiently prominent to be a primary topic here yet. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:35, 28 October 2018 (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.