Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luxurious (song)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 10:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Luxurious (song)

Delete: Without unnecessarily dismissing the positive points of including pop-songs, may I draw your attention to the initial question of longevity for this article, as per the wiki guidelines for inclusion? Do you honestly believe that in the year 2105 that a Wikipaedia user is going to type in the words “luxurious” expecting to find this ephemeral, predominantly MTV-specific pop song?

Has it made such an impact on the collective imagination e.g. “Happy Birthday”, “New York, New York”, that our grandchildren’s grandchildren will be singing it?

Due to the very nature of mass marketing, articles about commercial pop songs are very easy to verify. Does this by itself validate their inclusion in this project?

This sort of grass roots advertising is often effectively undetectable, what with zombie e-teamers running all over the web. We really should be on the look out for it beofre the project becomes a giant press release. --HasBeen 11:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Hit song by notable artist. If not kept, should be merged with Love. Angel. Music. Baby. but enough here to warrant stand alone article, Needs referencing. Capitalistroadster 18:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• 'Delete As per nom. Songs in and of themselves are not notable, and there is no indication in the article about this particular song's impact on music in general. There isn't much that would merge well into the article on the album, and there are several other songs from the album which have articles that should be considered for deletion. Perhaps 'Rich Girl' might stay by being briefly mentioned in If I Were a Rich Man (song) as it already is. DeathThoreau 02:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies so far. I don't want to seem pushy, but I don't think my question is being addressed: who will type the word "luxurious" into our search engine expecting to find this thinly-veiled advert for a pop-song, even next year, let alone in 2105? --HasBeen 08:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

To answer your question: Anybody interested in reading about that particular song or Gwen Stefani's discography has a good chance that they'll expect this entry when they search for the keyword. Simple as that. Anyways, there's no grounds for deletion. --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 14:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Do not merge. Verified single within Gwen Stefani's discography and definitely encyclopedic. Compare this to Madonna's "Hung Up" and Gorillaz' "Dirty Harry". See WikiProject Songs. --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 14:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The user who proposed this deletion has also placed a comment on the talk page at Hollaback Girl, leading me to believe that numerous sockpuppets are being materialised to help remove modern music articles. If "Luxurious" should not be kept, the songs written by The Beatles should not be kept. It is as simple as one, two, three. —Hollow Wilerding 21:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I'd like to note that I am convinced that User:Death Thoreau is a sockpuppet, judging by the edits listed at his/her contributions. This also appears to be the case with the nominator, as all of their edits are based on the longevity of Stefani's music-singles articles. Evidence. —Hollow Wilerding 21:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Of course keep it. This battle has been fought too many times (the argument over single inclusion) and it has been very decisively determined that the community favors these articles. Unless some evidence arises that the community is moving back towards deletionism on this issue (the general tendency seems to be strongly towards inclusionism), I think nominations like this should simply be removed. Maybe we can still have the vote if a stubborn deletionist insists, but it's absurd to have that template stuck at the top of the article. We are trying to do serious work here. Everyking 06:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• I bolded your "keep" so that it's easier to locate, Everyking. —Hollow Wilerding 14:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete I am no sock puppet, although the crushing, gang-related mentality of certain rabid Gwen Stefanni fans really does indicate that this project has been infiltrated by e-teamers at the very least, and professional marketing people at worst.

My reasons for pursuing this question was that on the day that Gwen got her free commercial on the front page of Wiki, an article that I was adding to was deleted on very flimsy grounds, in fact the same flimsy grounds that you e-teamers are knocking the system with here and now.

It seems there is one rule for major record labels and quite another (terminal) one for local press.

Two questions: (1) why don't any of "you" address my original question directly, i.e. is it correct to assign words of the English Language to minor historical events in an encyclopaedia, especially pop songs that don't even get much of a UK release? (2) why is this information not included in the pop-stars bio, where it clearly belongs; why must it have its own entry?--HasBeen 09:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.