Talk:Politics, Religion and Her (song)

This article was nominated for deletion on 5 November 2009. The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete.

Merge proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The consensus seems to clearly favor redirection and there is no recent discussion, so I am closing this discussion and redirecting both articles per the request made by TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) at WP:AN for an uninvolved admin. That request also suggested protecting the redirects to prevent further edit warring, which I will do if either redirect is reverted. --RL0919 (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Per WP:NSONGS, "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts[…] 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[.]" That's exactly what we've got here. I believe that this should stay redirected, as should the similar nanostub High-Tech Redneck (song). Discussion with the page's author has gotten nowhere, as he considers a redirect "restrictive." Note that both songs were nominated for deletion in the past (see above) with no consensus to delete, but a slight consensus to merge. I would like to know what the community thinks of both of these articles. (Note that the targets in question both explicitly mention the writers, song lengths and peak positions of each song, which was pretty much all that was contained in either article.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as redirected — There's barely even an entire paragraphs worth of information on both of these song articles. I really don't understand how the editor in conflict wants these to be kept in the first place. On each, the basic information on both is the artist, album, and it's music video appearance on Country Music Television. Is that seriously even enough info to warrant its own article? I don't believe so. And I agree 100% with TenPoundHammer that both of these should stay redirected. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disclosure note: The above user was asked to comment here by TenPoundHammer [1], along with three other editors [2] [3] [4] and the protecting admin [5]. A note was also left at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music) [6]. –xeno^talk 16:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think of that as canvassing, as I tried to phrase my request neutrally. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is canvassing, not necessarily inappropriate canvassing though. The note at WT Not (music) could have been better. In any case, it is important to note here, for disclosure purposes. –xeno^talk 17:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC) I re-jigged the note at WT Notability (music) to be more neutral. –xeno^talk 18:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep as redirected~~ Redirect both. I was canvassed as well. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: For reference, this is what High-Tech Redneck looked like before redirection, and this is what Politics, Religion and Her looked like. Note also that HTR was never touched after its AFD, and the only edit made to PRaH after its AFD was a user adding a link to Tony Martin (songwriter). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was notified of this discussion by TPH as I was a participant in the AFD. The no consensus result is really a split between whether it be redirected or merged with no appetite to delete it. Let's examine the contents of the article. The song charted, and had a video that was popular on CMT. Note that only the billboard chart position is the only piece of referenced information. That falls well short of what would be justifiable as a separate article. If the unreferenced bit about the video is deemed important, it can certainly be merged into the album article -- Whpq (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- REDIRECT BOTH. I only participated in the AFD for Politics, Religion and Her (song), but both song articles suffer from the same problem. And the same solution of redirect is appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge as agreed at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Politics,_Religion_and_Her_(song). SunCreator (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reading again that AFD closure is not clear. It could mean don't delete (keep) but discuss a merge/redirect or just discuss a merge/redirect. SunCreator (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - I don't understand how you come to the conclusion that the closure is unclear. The admin closed the AFD with the satement "Please take discussion of whether to redirect and/or merge to the appropriate talk pages." Note that the only two choices offered by the admin was redirect or merge, and not keep. Also, the closing admin has provided his opinion above (Nihonjoe). -- Whpq (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The closure was very clear: there was no consensus to delete. That's neither a keep nor a delete. As Whpq says, I recommended taking the discussion of whether to merge and/or redirect to the appropriate talk page, which you've now done. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - No Consensus defaults to keep. The second sentence doesn't override that, hence it's not clear. SunCreator (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, it defaults to keep, but "no consensus" is not the same thing as a "keep" result (even though both result in the article sticking around). If you don't understand that, then there's not much I can do for you. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 10:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I agree that a no consensus defaults to keep. But per WP:COMMONSENSE, the concesensus was very clear that a standalone article was not appropriate, and the only disagreement to resolve was whether it was a straight redirect or a merge. -- Whpq (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure: All participants at the AFDs for this and High-Tech Redneck (song) have been notified of this discussion by TPH at my suggestion. This is appropriate canvassing ('friendly notice'). If I could just remind everyone to please make it explicit whether your comments apply to the Politics, Religion and Her song, to the Hi-Tech Redneck song, or both. Thanks, –xeno^talk 18:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~Redirect As always, I favor merging articles about singles into the parent album. I would like to see WP:NSONGS made much more restrictive, and only have articles about songs when there are multiple notable singles by multiple artists. Otherwise, keeping them separate is just a magnet for trivia and redundancy.—Kww(talk) 18:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What material would you merge? The charting information is already in the album article, and the information about the video isn't referenced. -- Whpq (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I believe the proposal is to merge and redirect the song to the album. If the merge is already essentially "done", then I suppose some work is cut out for the closing admin should they close it as such. –xeno^talk 19:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - True enough: changed to "redirect".—Kww(talk) 20:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as redirect The song was a slightly-low charting single and there's not much about this song to need an article. Heck the only thing that could make this song notable at is it's chart activity and video aired on CMT. That isn't a lot. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- High Tech-Redneck should be redirected as well for the same reason. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 19:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect - there is no reason for this article to exist, because the limited info given can be found elsewhere in Wikipedia, such as the artist page or album page. CloversMallRat (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect as proposed in both cases - #28 on Billboard makes the present song only a minor hit and I doubt much more can be said than has been said about the song in this article (which isn't a lot). Ditto the other song. The albums both appear to be relatively notable, however, going by their articles and it is in these that the information contained in these two articles belongs, IMO. --Jubilee♫clipman 01:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect. The problem in this case is people feel charting is a magic bullet to guarantee an article. I've seen too many perma stub articles pass AfD because they hit number 98 on a chart no one has heard of. Rehevkor ✉ 05:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. There simply isn't enough here to warrant a separate article, and considering the song only reached #28, I doubt there ever will be. Its songwriters and peak position are already included in the album's article, so there's nothing to merge. Eric444 (talk) 08:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.