Talk:Ride Through the Country

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum 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.

Singles

All of Colt's singles peaked in the low 50's or #60. That's not enough of a peak to get a lot of momentum and sources. I looked and couldn't find much in the way of reviews for any of his singles; very few of them seem to meet WP:NSONGS, if any. (Footnote: I wrote a review for "Chicken & Biscuits" on Roughstock, and I think my editor reviewed another song of his. Beyond that, I can't find much.) I think they should all be merged into the albums. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand you, none of Colt Ford's singles appear to have their own articles. NYSMtalk page 22:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I found the ones you're referring to (they weren't linked anywhere). They clearly do not meet WP:NSONGS, and not by any means do they warrant their own articles, hands down. I redirected them. NYSMtalk page 22:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jax 0677 created the song stubs and already undid my attempts to redirect them, which is why I started the discussion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well then he's a fool, just cause he is a fan of them doesn't mean he can override Wikipedia's notability policy. NYSMtalk page 22:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have made my point at the Template:Colt Ford discussion about the songs charting and having their own videos. Charting is one criteria of notability, but not a sufficient one. A section in the article detailing the video itself likely satisfies the article about the songs going beyond a stub (though I have not watched any of the videos, I am assuming that the videos are of significant length and content). The articles were blanked BEFORE a sufficient discussion about them took place. This is the opposite of consensus. Ford's fourth album was redirected, essentially destroying the house while it is being built (TPH asked for a track listing, which I have since provided).

Points 2-4 at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_July_5#Template:Colt_Ford have still not been addressed. This template is exactly what got this discussion started in the first place. Ford, his label and his first three albums had articles before I created the template in question, the articles for 2 of his songs, and the article for his fourth album. This leaves us with 6 articles, 5 of which do NOT link to ALL of the other 5 without use of the navbox shown (now that the DoI article has been created, the second and fourth studio albums do not link to all of the albums). This is why navboxes exist, to facilitate the transfer between articles.

What evidence do you have that I am trying to override WP:N or that I am a fan of Colt Ford? I am simply asking that the conversation take place before we delete or redirect the article.

How is "he's a fool" in compliance with WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA?--Jax 0677 (talk) 02:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I am assuming that the videos are of significant length and content" — you're basing the notability on assumptions? That doesn't even begin to make sense. What else makes you think the songs might be notable? Do you assume that there are reviews of the song? Articles discussing its content? As I said, I reviewed "Chicken & Biscuits" on Roughstock, but beyond that I'm finding very little to base an article on. If you think the articles have enough "meat" to be kept, then prove it — show that sources exist, don't just assume they do. If there are no sources to be found, then there shouldn't be an article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I never said there were reviews. I said that the songs charted, and I just watched the videos. Reviews or not, the videos are significant, and the videos are what they are regardless of reviews, able to push the article beyond a stub. A description of the video can be made based on watching the video.

WP:NSONG says, and I quote:

"Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups 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; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album". IMHO, the video qualifies as "enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" [to grow beyond a stub].

Also, you still have not addressed Points 2-4 mentioned above. If you can not address these three points, then the template should stand. That is all.--Jax 0677 (talk) 03:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about the template, so quit going off topic. (Furthermore, I withdrew the TFD since on second thought, Declaration of Independence is close enough to its release date that it can stay.) However, you missed the "reasonably detailed article[…]unlikely to grow beyond stub" part of what you just quoted. What makes you think this will ever be more than a two-sentence stub with no sources beyond one proving its peak position on the charts? What makes you think anything about this article will be "reasonably detailed"? So far all you've done is present totally unrelated straw man arguments, and failed to prove that there are enough sources out there on which to hang an entire article. As I said, no sources, no article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"A [detailed] description of the video can be made based on watching the video". If this is not enough, then I suppose we can lump all of the video descriptions into the album articles if and when they get created. This WHOLE discussion about the singles started as a result of the TfD. If the proper research was done prior to the TfD being filed, time likely would not have been spent before now on these singles AT ALL (albeit hindsight is 20/20). BTW, the result of the TfD discussion should NOT be delete as you have stated. Thanks!--Jax 0677 (talk) 04:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A description of the video, based entirely on the video itself, would be considered content from primary sources — and just primary sources aren't enough. You have to have secondary sources. As I said — have you found any reviews of the singles? Significant mentions of them in the reviews of the albums? That is the kind of stuff that makes a single's article substantial, not "well, just watch the video, he does this then this then that." Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, "we can lump all of the video descriptions into the album articles".--Jax 0677 (talk) 12:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then we can lump the rest of the content on the songs into the album articles too, can't we? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 13:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sir!--Jax 0677 (talk) 20:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which is what I was trying to do in the first place by redirecting. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TPH, to answer your questions, an quick internet search produced the album title, release date and track listing for DoI. Even so, NENAN does not specify that the 5 articles not include the template title/parent article (if I am mistaken, please let me know). The 5 article minimum for NENAN is not set in stone, and the articles did not all link to one another without the navbox. You said you did research to see if there were enough links to justify a template. The second sentence of the lead paragraph of AJE says "founded in 2008 by country rap artist Colt Ford". If this is the case, then the TfD should NEVER have been filed in the first place.

I created the articles about the singles based on the best information available to me at the time. NSONGS itself does not specify independence of the sources, only ranking, awards, multiple artists and the potential for the article to grow beyond a stub. The independence of the sources was a slight but understandable oversight on my part, as it is difficult to be knowledgeable about ALL Wikipedia policies.

Please feel free to redirect the singles to their albums, but keep album DoI as is. "The result of the discussion was delete" is what is shown at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#July_5#Template:Colt_Ford. I believe that this applies to templates that are being deleted, for example Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_19#Template:Kip_Moore--Jax 0677 (talk) 01:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]