Talk:Get On Your Knees (Los Canarios song)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted as being about a musical recording that does not indicate its own importance and where the artist's article does not exist, because... (because it went triple gold, I hope this is not an example of deleting an article because it competes for title space with a another Get On Your Knees?) --In ictu oculi (talk) 05:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

When A) there is no significant coverage from reliable secondary sources outside of album reviews B) there is no article for the song's artist, certifications are entirely moot. See also WP:CSD#A9. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

There's now a stub on artist, you are free to expand from Spanish Wikipedia if you wish. Please remove the CSD. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 27 May 2015

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: not moved. Number 57 16:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

---

Get On Your Knees (Los Canarios song) → Get On Your Knees – DAB not needed when no other song with this name has a separate article – Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Steel1943 (talk) 02:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Pinging dab page creator In ictu oculi for input on this. Steel1943 (talk) 02:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

*Support. Being the only article makes it WP:PRIMARYTOPIC by usage almost by default, and since it was a triple gold song it is likely the primarytopic by significance as well. Dohn joe (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC) Striking !vote given subsequent information from In ictu below. The history of these pages was hidden at the time of my !vote. I would like to see evidence that either one of these songs should be wp:primarytopic. Dohn joe (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, obviously even with good will looks like an example of disruptive editing. First there is last year a lot of hype about Get On Your Knees (Nicki Minaj song) a single featuring Arianna Grande but with mixed chart results, then attempt to delete Spanish song above, then attempt to delete the Nicki Minaj song here, then blanking the dab, and now this. What exactly is the point? Second, what is the point of the support vote? There quite clearly isn't any benefit to general readers (let alone Nicki Minaj or Arianna Grande fans) from removing the band name, so what dogma is being followed here? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

  My support made sense at the time it was made. I've struck it for now until someone presents evidence to support another support. Thanks for presenting the page histories. Dohn joe (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

What's more User:Steel1943 is right to note that blanking articles and removing disambiguation without discussion like this is not "technical request" material. User:SNUGGUMS have you done any other article-blanking like this? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• In ictu oculi's comments are a violation of WP:AGF. The notability criteria for songs is WP:NSONGS; a song only warrants a separate article when there is enough information to expand beyond a stub AND there must be significant coverage OUTSIDE OF ALBUM REVIEWS from reliable secondary sources on the song. While this article was once tagged for CSD#A9, that was because the artist didn't have a separate article; that criterion states musical recordings do not warrant articles if there is no corresponding article for artist. As for the Nicki Minaj/Ariana Grande song, I redirected that since it fails WP:NSONGS. Also, that wasn't a single, and there wasn't so much of a hype about it..... at least not outside of album reviews. Not everything needs to be disambiguated. If only one entry with a certain name is notable, then there is no need to disambiguate the title. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per IIO, other topics exist with coverage on Wikipedia (regardless if they are articles or sections of articles, they are covered in Wikipedia, therefore are viable topics to search for), so the statement that no dab page is needed is wrong. Further the Nikki Minaj article is much longer than this one. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• Article length not withstanding, the Nicki Minaj song article fails WP:NSONGS for no reliable secondary sources outside of album reviews giving it significant coverage. I haven't looked as far into this one for non-album review coverage yet, though will say that it is unnecessary to make a DAB when only one article meets notability criteria. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Then go ahead and nominate for deletion all articles where topics called "Get On Your Knees" appear as sections as well, since those are also articles that exist on Wikipedia which contain topics called "Get On Your Knees". -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

---

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.