|
@Calvin999: You're being ridiculous; this song definitely passes WP:NSONGS. Last time I checked published sources like Billboard and Rolling Stone and Entertainment Weekly that discuss the song in particular, in addition to being mentioned in its title, are considered reliable third party sources. Also inferring that I will "edit war" over this article because a previous disagreement that resulted in literally one revert is purely preposterous. Please no WP:BULLY. Carbrera (talk) 21:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Carbrera No, it certainly doesn't pass. According to WP:NSONGS:
- "A single requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That a single is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article."
- There is one review in the Critical reception section i.e. no significant coverage: ✗ Fail
- Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts?: ✗ Fail
- Has won one or more significant awards or honors, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award?: ✗ Fail
- Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups?: ✗ Fail
- "Songs that do not rise to notability for an independent article should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song."
- I advise that you read WP:NSONGS in full before saying it passes when you haven't read it properly. It is not notable yet. No one is bullying anyone, but you are blatantly ignoring the rules and it's bordering on fancruft by your doing so. Just because a singer uploads a song to YouTube, or performs it once, it doesn't mean it needs an article. There is so little content here that there's no reason why it can't be included on Joanne as the rules say it should be. If you would just wait for it to at least chart, you would be in a much stronger position of making your case for it being in mainspace and not redirected. It is very common practise for songs to be redirected until they have charted precisely for the reason of establishing notability. — Calvin999 08:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Calvin999: You're handling this situation extremely poorly. Not only have I read WP:NSONGS in full before, but demeaning me in the process is highly rude and juvenile on your part. Perhaps you should read WP:BULLY and WP:OWN in full? I imagine the second "Million Reasons" charts in one country, you will self-revert and say something along the lines of "Now passes WP:NSONGS". I also never brought up your claim of me edit-warring in your previous remarks, over making one revert which makes zero sense; do you even know how WP:EW works? The song has established notability because it has been the subject of several and various independent sources. Furthermore, you must have not read this article at all because there is more than one review in the 'Critical reception' section; additionally, you really expect a song released a handful of days ago to already be nominated for a Grammy or covered by notable artists? You're kidding me, right? I understand that's just an aspect of the guidelines, but come on. I really don't like getting into disputes with editors, and I've never had a problem by creating an article for a song that without a doubt passes WP:NSONGS, but since you're being extremely unaccommodating and difficult to deal with, I do not wish to continue debating this with you. Carbrera (talk) 21:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- It's not me ignoring the rules at WP:NSONGS, so I am not guilty of the things that you accuse me of. WP:BULLY and WP:OWN don't apply here, so you've not read those properly either. When I last redirect, there was one sentence/one review in the Critical reception. I have told you that as soon as it passes at least one of the criteria I mentioned above, then it would greatly help you in creating an article that goes beyond what is currently fancruft creation. If you think that this passes, despite me showing above that it currently fails every point, then it leaves me questioning your editing. I don't see how I can present you with the failed criteria points above and you still think that it passes. — Calvin999 16:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Calvin999: No, there was more than one; I checked the edit histories. You really need to stop telling me I haven't read these pages properly. Quite frankly, it's insulting and flat out rude. This page does not fail the notability criterion despite your continual efforts to WP:OWN this page. How are all of these independent sources not worthy? Carbrera (talk) 02:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC).
- Can't you see all the fail templates against the criteria it fails above? I'm hardly trying to own the page, it currently is redirected and not being edited. This again shows you are not reading what I'm saying. I have said multiple times that when it passes at least one of the above (one of which will be imminent I should think) then feel free to remove the redirect. How is that owning the article? I only care about articles existing that pass at least one of the criteria with a good amount of reason behind it. It has nothing to do with ownership. Several editors redirect articles I did years ago when I was less wise about these things, but I never accused them of ownership. Now, I know they were right to redirect for the sake of Wikipedia not becoming something a fan does. You've got to learn that it's not all about what you want. There are rules to adhere by, and that includes you abiding by them. I have seen many editors tell others to wait until a song or single has at the very least charted in order to establish some level of notability in conjunction with third party content elsewhere in the article, as the rules say. — Calvin999 08:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, I'd like to see the article live and given a chance to expand. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- Another Believer Well now that it has charted, it has some notability. That's all I was ever saying in the first place. Carbrera only had to wait five or six days since I redirected it, but it was made into such a bigger deal than it ever needed to be. He/she doesn't seem to understand that it's basic practice to redirect articles that don't have notability or at least until they chart in order to establish some notability, it's nothing personal against him/her, editors have done it to me a few times to me years ago and I've seen it many times to other editors too. Carbrera needs to get that this essentially had nothing to do with him, or me, or you, or the neighbour down the street, it's about the article and what is good for the article. That's why all of his accusations of bully and own towards me are and were always completely baseless. — Calvin999 08:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
So, Carbrera, after all the fuss you made about the redirect being removed, are you actually going to improve this article now its open again with an under construction banner, because you haven't done anything to it. What was the rush if you're just going to ignore it. The article is still a sparse article that can still be redirected. — Calvin999 09:27, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm back again so development concern is moot now lol. —IB [ Poke ] 14:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- That's good. — Calvin999 14:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
|
