Jump to content

Talk:Send a Message to My Heart

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RfC: Should this and similar articles for singles be merged or redirected?

[edit]
[edit]

There's some background to this; this particular article was redirected to its parent album, If There Was a Way, but another editor reverted, and a discussion (hah!) has ensued. Under WP:MUSIC, borderline notable singles are generally considered better merged than kept as permastubs, from my reading; that would seem to make sense. However, there's some debate over that, so I'd like to see some more discussion on this topic.

Discussion regarding this can be found at User talk:Tony Fox#Musical help again, User_talk:TenPoundHammer#Send A Message To My Heart and User talk:Bwmoll3#Vandalism accusations. I'd appreciate further views. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rfc response - I say merge into the album article. Just because the musician is notable doesn't mean he/she has the midas touch of notability (everything he touches is notable). If the article isn't notable on its own merit, then it should be merged with the umbrella work.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • From WP:MUSIC "....Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable...."
    • 1. The song is performed by notible artists (according to the WP:MUSIC critera). Not just one artist, but two artists that fall under that criteria.
    • 2. The song was ranked on national music charts.

Based upon the fact that it meets both of these criteria specified in WP:MUSIC, retain the article for the song. Bwmoll3 (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability, verifiable sources, reasonably detailed articles

[edit]
    • The next sentence of WP:MUSIC goes on to say, however: "A separate article is only appropriate when there is to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Are there substantial references you can provide to indicate this will ever grow beyond stub status? Tony Fox (arf!) 15:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Understood. Please provide a definition of the phrase "...enough verifiable material..". Specifically, the definition of "enough", as one person's definition is different than another. Bwmoll3 (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact is that prominent music artists grant interviews to the media in which they discuss their songs as part of the promotional effort when they are released. In the country music genre, these would be Music City News, Country Music Weekly, as well as programs on Country Music Television (CMT), archives of The Nashville Network (TNN), and various websites that can be researched for material to advance the article above stub status. Bwmoll3 (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is generally defined as multiple, non-trivial independent sources. If you can turn up a number of such references to back up this article as being important, that would go a long way towards making an independent article acceptable. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Understood. And that will happen when time becomes available to do the research. There was material on the article which was deleted as "fluff" which Ms. Loveless gave during an interview which was on a website. The fact remains that the article does meet all the criteria specified in WP:Music and should be retained. Bwmoll3 (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the time it was redirected, the article contained no references, and read as, for the majority, personal opinion. I'll look forward to seeing your references to indicate that it does, indeed, meet the criteria. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • From WP:Music "...A separate article 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...." As the article is likely to grow, it does indeed meet this criteria. Bwmoll3 (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thus far, I have yet to see reliable sources that could be used to make it grow beyond the current size. I'll look forward to seeing such sources presented to back up your belief that it has the ability to move beyond this point. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect, I don't believe the criteria to retain this article is for you to see the reliable sources immediately. The criteria, which I've highlighted above is the Likelyhood that the article will grow. With the plethora of material about these two noteworthy artists in the public domain, as well as the fact that the article in question meets the other two requirements for retention the third criteria can and will be met when sufficent time is available. We are going though this process in good faith here, and unlike the individual who'se job is is to whack and delete articles of unnoteworthy artists of songs that did not chart on national charts, I believe I've made sufficent points and presented enough evidence to retain this, and the other pages that the individuals unqualified opinion also wants to delete. Bwmoll3 (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another point, which has not been mentioned, but which I believe is quite relevant is the fact that this article is not about a relatively unknown song by an unknown artist that is using Wikipedia in order to garner attention to themselves and their music. This is, what I submit, the criteria in WP:MUSIC was written for and the reason for the criteria's existance. With all respect to Wikipedia, these artists don't need to use Wikipedia to promote their music or themselves. This article is simply to document the historical record of these artists' musical career, and deleting it serves no purpose other than to leave gaps in their long record of successful music releases. Bwmoll3 (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding your first point; were this an AfD discussion, the onus of providing sources to prove notability would be upon those arguing keep - in this case, that would be your position. At this point, you have yet to provide any. I'm not saying I want to see them NOW NOW NOW, but I'd like to see some - period - to prove that this article has the potential for growth. The version prior to the redirection was full of opinion, and had no sources. I have seen no sources provided to encourage me to think it has growth potential.
  • With regards to the second points, the information would be just as well preserved as a short portion of the album article, instead of a permastub, with a redirect pointing to it. This would result in no gaps in the history you mention.
  • Finally, I'd appreciate if you would keep your comments on content, not the contributors. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This website page was the soucce for the information which was deleted. http://www.angelfire.com/tn2/epunlimited/novlost.html . It was based upon an interview with Ms. Loveless that was made by a friend of mine who worked at Sony/Nashville at the time (1999) to which Ms Loveless provided information about her music and career. It was though her that I met the artist, whom I have been friends with for over a decade. Which is why I wrote the numerous articles about her music here on Wikipedia, as I believed her music was grossly unrepresented here and it was a way for people interested in her music to learn about it. This is not an area which I write about to any great extent, if you review my contributions you'll see that, it was simply a way to fill a gap which I saw here on Wikipedia and correct it with knowlege I was willing to contribute. The fact is that there are litterally reams of other printed material about the music Ms. Lovelss has recorded over the years that existsthat I just don't have the time go to though right now which has additional information to fill out these pages. Bwmoll3 (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also it seems we have some shifting of the goalposts here with regards to this editor in question and the criteria he uses for keeping or deleting articles. He wrote on my talk page the following: "...You're putting words in my mouth. I said "...and merging the rest into the pages on the albums. The songs that didn't chart at all are probably better off deleted." I never said I wanted anything else deleted, just the songs that didn't chart. Andy why do you think that I'm going off my own opinion entirely? If a song didn't chart, it's most likely non-notable per WP:MUSIC. "Keep Your Distance" et al. didn't chart; therefore, it doesn't deserve its own page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)..." However, now this editor has shifted the goalpoasts and wants to delete MORE of these articles of songs by Patty Loveless which, in his OPINION, are unnotiable. Bwmoll3 (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition, the fact remains that this article Does Meet the criteria outlined in WP:MUSIC, and we would not even be having this discussion if this editor wasn't dead-set against retaining it. Now, either we follow the written criteria stated in WP:MUSIC or we just toss them out and let anyone do just whatever they want, which I don't think is a good road to follow. The criteria is what we should go by, not opinions. Bwmoll3 (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are missing my point. We. Have. No. Sources. The one you point out is on an Angelfire page. This is not an editorially-reviewed publication that would fit under WP:RS. Thus, no matter how many times you say it, it does not meet the criteria outlined above.
At this point, my views are quite clear, yours are obviously not going to change any time soon, and I'm not going to continue what is quickly sliding into an attack session on someone who has yet to participate in this discussion. I'll wait to hear more views. At present, I feel the article should be merged - as does the only other participant in the discussion thus far. If you provide me sources to indicate that it will, in fact, meet the guidelines under WP:MUSIC, I will gladly reconsider. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In other words this has been a stacked deck of shifting goalpoasts and an exercise in mental masturbation for anyone that disagrees with an editor. The rules are the rules, except if you are an editor in which case the rules are what they want them to be. Warmest Regards Bwmoll3 (talk) 23:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, why is a "...editorially-reviewed publication that would fit under WP:RS" now the requirement for an article? I suspect that the vast majority of articles here on Wikipedia do not have peer-reviewed articles as references. You asked for a reference and I provided one. However, now the goalpoasts were shifted by you and now suddenly it has to be an "editorially-reviewed publication.."... There is nothing along this line in WP:MUSIC, and it sounds like requirements are being dredged up to justify deletion of articles which a rampant editor feels like deleting based upon their opinion. Also the fact remains that we woudln't be even discussing deletng this article if it hadn't been turned into a redirect in the first place by this editor, so yes he is part of this discussion, whether he chooses to participate in it or not.
I find your comments personally insulting, and would appreciate if you refactored them. In response to your question, the verification policy states that "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The webpage which you pointed to would appear to be a self-published source, which are generally considered problematic. Thus, as you can see, the need for these sources is, indeed, part of Wikipedia policy.
I am not attempting to "push the goalposts back." I am attempting - as is generally considered part of the 'job' of an administrator - to ensure that policy and guideline are followed. This requires sources to back up the notability of the article.
As this discussion is becoming more personal and less constructive, I have requested that members of the WikiProject Songs weigh in on this discussion to draw more opinions. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Song Redirects in general, decisions on Notability

[edit]

This discussion is a good one! Songs absolutely should be standalone researchable articles. Songs are often recorded by multiple artists, are often on multiple albums, and should NOT be redirected to one artist's album. To redirect a song article to one artist’s album basically deletes all the vitals on the song (writers, other recordings, awards, and related links). Why should a hit song (certainly any charted song) be permanently tied within to one artist, when the artist's article can clearly link to the song, broadening the benefits of research? Also, the focus on what is a "notable" song and what is not "notable" should not be for one Wikipedian to decide IF the song was a chart hit in any of the major trade magazines. One particular Wikipedian (one known for massive amounts of "deletion issues") seems to have his own subjective scale of measuring what is notable, what is a hit, what articles deserve to be redirected, etc. I say let the articles (songs and artists) always remain valuable independent sources and benefit from the existence of each...LINK THEM. Songs in many cases are bigger than the artist. Most song redirects that I have seen are deserving of protest.Wikibones (talk) 22:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I happen to be the one particular Wikipedian of which Wikibones speaks. I can understand Wikibones's point, but I just don't see the purpose of leaving a song's page intact if there's little to no hope of expanding it beyond a stub. Also, I don't think that where a song peaked is necessarily a perfect indicator of a song's notability -- at the most, I use chart peaks as a loose guideline. A higher peak simply means that the song received a higher amount of airplay, and thus would be more likely to have entered the public eye. Of course, notability sometimes transcends chart position -- take The Bumper of My SUV, for instance. It was only a #35, but the big to-do with Chely Wright's fan club president planting fake requests for the song resulted in (among other things) plenty of coverage in reliable sources -- probably more than even her Number One hit "Single White Female".
  • The main issue here, however, appears to be that there are no sources whatsoever attesting to the notability of "Send a Message to My Heart". Therefore, I think that this song (and others like it) should be redirected and merged. Most, if not all, of these songs appear to have been cut only by Patty Loveless as far as I can tell; if you can prove me wrong, then please do. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is how the definition of "notible" is being applied. And clearly, there are different opinions on this. As opinions vary from one individual to another, this is clearly unacceptable as a guideline for deletion or redirection into an album page. Bwmoll3 (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As we have discussed in the past, I hope you are still not considering All Music Guide as a reliable source. That is perhaps the most unreliable source you can refer to. It is full of erroneous information and very difficult to correct. For notable songs (worthy of remaining as standalone articles), one would think that the Billboard, R&R, Cashbox (older), or Record World (older) charts (any song that "hit" the chart) would be sufficient. You are correct that sometimes the sources are not properly cited, but that should only indicate that the song article needs work and needs tagging as such, but not be reason enough for the song article to be obliterated (often by redirecting to one of your artist articles). Wikibones (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • What's the point of putting an {{unreferenced}} tag up if there are no references to be found anywhere? I have checked Billboard archives, a few magazines in my arsenal (old issues of Country Weekly, New Country, a bunch of other mags with "country" in the title). I have checked Google and Google News, and a variety of music websites (Country Standard Time, The 9513, etc.), and have not turned up anything regarding several of Loveless's singles. Nothing on "Send a Message to my Heart", nothing on "I Wanna Believe", nothing on "High on Love", nothing even on "That's the Kind of Mood I'm In". That doesn't mean that it's impossible for these articles to be anything more than stubs; it just means they're very unlikely to be expanded. And as I keep saying, I do not see a point in leaving a stub intact if it appears to be a permanent stub. You may not like the idea of merging it to the article, but that is what WP:MUSIC says, plain and simple, and I see no real reason to go against WP:MUSIC here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THAT is precisely what this discussion is for. Why don't you give your destructive actions a break on these song articles until everyone has a chance to speak their minds? Your actions are wildly independent and without consideration for content.Wikibones (talk) 11:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Song Redirects (again)

[edit]

It is happening again. I have asked TenPoundHammer before to STOP destroying song articles. Here we go again. Within the last 24 hours, TenPoundHammer has again made the misguided and subjectivly independent decision that articles on two highly recognizable hit singles by the artists George Jones and Sammy Kershaw deserve to be destroyed and merged into TenPoundHammer's own articles on the artists. This is extremely questionable that TenPoundHammer continues to destroy song articles for the enhancement of his own artist articles. STOP. I have chosen to not make a quest out of reversing TenPoundHammer's mistakes, but when TenPoundHammer's mistakes effect song articles I have created, I am not going to standby, and I urge others to do the same.Wikibones (talk) 11:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not "destruction," this is called 'collaborative editing' and is a quite valid approach to dealing with what an editor feels is a problematic edit. Stop calling it "destructive." Having said that, Hammer, it appears there's some concern about this. I'd suggest going to WT:MUSIC and starting a discussion about the notability of songs, because obviously there's never going to be agreement from Wikibones, as that appears. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Tony...thank you for your attention to the issue. With regard to my choice of the word "destructive", TenPoundHammer's complete redirect of a HIT song article into an album article totally obliterates the song article and the researchable data within that article (the writers, links to artists who have recorded it, cummulative chart data related to the song, awards the song has won, links to websites about the song, links to references, etc). Such actions by TenPoundHammer can hardly be called "collaborative editing", and cause extreme loss of researchable data. If the word "destructive" doesn't apply, I'm not sure what else to call it. It certainly isn't "collaboratve editing" when ONE person subjectively decides what is notable, ONE person subjectively decides what articles contain reasonable references, ONE person subjectively decides to delete others' work on chart HIT song articles by redirecting them to his own articles on artists. These kinds of unilateral, wildly independent decisions on deletions must be stopped. Wikibones (talk) 12:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Wikibones (talk) 12:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

back to "Send A Message To My Heart"

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Send_a_Message_to_My_Heart&oldid=1205245752"