Talk:Just Another Night (Icona Pop song)

Latest comment: 10 years ago by Xoloz in topic Requested move

Requested move

edit
The following discussion is an archived 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. The clear consensus is that this recent song does not demonstrate notability sufficient for primary topic status. Xoloz (talk) 02:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)Reply



Just Another Night (Icona Pop song)Just Another Night – No need for "Icona Pop song" 82.24.119.9 (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to have to note this but I hope this !vote will be disregarded due to the obvious fallacy. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose. Not having an article ≠ not notable. Of course something just released is going have more interest and more retrievable sources than songs from years ago. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
When should we assume a topic that doesn't have an article is notable? Should we give all such topics the benefit of the doubt, or only those that meet certain criteria? --BDD (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
And having an article ≠ notable. You give the benefit of the doubt when it's brought up in discussions such as this. So you're saying a song that reaches no. 50 on a music chart a month ago and has an article is clearly more notable than a song that reached the top 10 on the same chart 30 years ago only because it doesn't have an article? Now that this article has been redirected due to notability concerns and Just Another Night (Mick Jagger song) created into a stub article, I guess that article should be moved to Just Another Night, because according to you that song is notable now that it has an article and the other isn't notable because it doesn't. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Yes, actually (to the last sentence). Is everyone alright with the redirection of this page? I'm not saying the existence of an article means a topic is automatically notable, or we wouldn't have AfD. I am saying that a topic with an article should be presumed notable, or it should go to AfD. I'm saying we shouldn't speculate and make naming decisions based on articles that do not, and may never, exist. Thank you for creating an article on the Jagger song, by the way—we all benefit from that. --BDD (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
User:BDD I'm sorry to say this but "make naming decisions based on articles that do not, and may never, exist" is opposed to WP:DAB which makes article content the basis of decisions not whether article content is merged into or forked out of other articles. Whether a single is in an album or standalone is irrelevant. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps we should create WP:PAFD, Potential Articles for Discussion, to gauge the notability of hypothetical articles. I'm only half joking; if we're really going to make these sorts of decisions, there should be a place for structured discussion instead of uncritical acceptance of editors' opinions. --BDD (talk) 20:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
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.

What has happened to the Just Another Night (Icona Pop song) content?

edit

The article we are having a RM about has been blanked and redirected. and Nothing has been added to the album. Where's the discussion? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Here, if you'd like, though so far no one seems interested being the R in BRD. --BDD (talk) 04:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
I'm inclined to be the R I think, we shouldn't just blank+redirect sourced articles. Despite my own feeling that en.wp's coverage of songs has a large WP:UNDUE/WP:RECENT issue re the world before 2005, this pop song is no less notable than any other 2014 song article being created User:Andreas81 is a new and infrequent User, why the hurry to blank+redirect? In ictu oculi (talk) 20:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
The song fails WP:NSONGS and WP:GNG (one source explaining a "free release" is not a sourced article). There is nothing to include into This Is... Icona Pop other than "It is the 5th single". As long as the song doesn't chart, we don't need an article. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 21:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
BTW, your indirect comment to say Andreas is a newbie and therefore was bitten is ridiculous. Andreas knows articles about songs have to be created when they meet the minimal requierments of notability. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 21:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Hello, you are the editor who blanked + redirected. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
WP:BLANK and WP:REDIRECT are not the same thing. Assuming you are not the IP 112.201.190.86. I WP:AFD it due to lack of independence. If you have any problem with me "blanking + redirecting" articles, go with an admin. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 23:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
No editor would need to "go with an admin" in order to revert your blanking and redirect of a sourced article. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
I didn't understand your comment about IP 112.201.190.86, now I see that an editor from the Philippines has restored the article - good for him/her. I would suggest that you use the AfD process for sourced articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Reply