Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What You Waiting For?

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 10:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What You Waiting For?

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 “what you waiting for” 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 11:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable hit song reaching #1 in Australia. Capitalistroadster 17:01, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, the so-called 100 year rule is not official policy but considered by a very small number of people when voting. WP:NOT is official policy including Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Speculating on what will be notable in 100 years time is inevitably crystal ball material. We simply have no way of knowing. Lets look at some figures around in 1905. Who would have thought in 1905 that an Austrian vagabond would have been one of the more notable figures of the twentieth century? Or a Georgian agitator? An obscure clerk at the Swiss patents office would have seemed an unlikely candidate to be the twentieth century's leading physicist at the beginning of 1905. As we have no way of knowing what will be notable in 100 years time, we must judge by what is notable and verifiable now.Capitalistroadster 17:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP'. 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? Yes.

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 words "what you waiting for" into our search engine expecting to find this thinly-veiled advert for a pop-song, even next year, let alone in 2105?

I'm not doubting that the words "gwen stefanni" will be a popular choice for many browsers, and should details of her songs go there?

This is a question of associating words of the English language with ephemeral pop ditties that frankly do not deserve such attention. Here in the UK, this pop-star is minor, and certainly not worthy of note any more than the long line of Madonna-clones that churn out from over the Atlantic. I am not picking on Gwen: indeed I will be cleaning up a great deal many other articles of the same nature over the next year.

I agree with the poster above: copy/paste to her bio, where this sort of thing belongs.

Being easy to validate does not make a thing worthy of attention. Should we have a page "It rained in Newcastle on xx/xx/xxxx" every time it rains in Newcastle?(Ps it always rains in Newcastle...)--HasBeen 08:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Encyclopedic topic, there's no ground for deletion. --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 15:02, 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 21:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't know about that last part, HW -- at least the Beatles' songs have withstood the test of some four decades' time... as opposed to a few months for Stefani's recordings. We're venturing into subjectivity here - and possibility a bit of hero worshiping, too. Are Gwen Stefani's songs more notable than, say, the Rolling Stones, the Little River Band, or ABBA's? It gets back to subjectivity, I suppose. B.Wind 23:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • This is an encyclopedia; an encyclopedia, in this case Wikipedia, documents anything and everything that exists — Gwen Stefani and The Beatles are both human, so if one cannot have their music displayed on Wikipedia, neither can the other. End of discussion. —Hollow Wilerding 16:27, 10 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 21:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Interesting - we're having a run on Gwen Stefani singles articles for consideration here. While it's a matter a personal choice to decide who significant they are, I must point out that older, very significant singles don't have stand-alone articles... and should. But for this one, keep as notable, verifiable... and hoping that someone will come around and give the Gwen Stefani treatment to Hall and Oates or Bob Seger. B.Wind 23:22, 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 14:27, 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 09:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Your contributions convince me that you are a sockpuppet. Let's make something clear: if the Beatles are worthy enough of possessing articles for their songs, then so is Gwen Stefani. The quantity of the song's performance, or the quantity of the musical arist's presence and popularity is irrelevant. In this case, Gwen Stefani will never be as popular as the Beatles were — however that's quantity and overlooks the quality of the actual song inspiration, composition, chart performance, etc. If Stefani should not be allowed to have articles on her single releases, then all of the Beatles singles are going to be removed. —Hollow Wilerding 21:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

You see, you agree with me! I think Gwen, The Beatles and even Clockface should all be included in this project, I just don't see why we have to endure a free commercial masquerading every time a new single gets released. The place for this article's content is in the bio. That's where people are going to want to find this information. If I were looking for rare Gwen Steffani b-sides, I'd type in her name, not guess at a half-rmemebered song title. Please explain to me why including this information in her bio is unacceptable. Move information to bio, then Delete --HasBeen 10:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

We're going to include the many chart tables in Stefani's article? Uh... —Hollow Wilerding 00:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Why not? Clearly if all the information is excessive for her bio, then perhaps it should be included in a fan-site, or perhaps her own official webpage? So far the only argument against including this information where it most likely should be placed is one of editing: join the club. All of Wiki's articles are editted in one way or another... Your reply does nothing to assuage my fears that this article is little better than commercial advertisment; is that what wiki is for? Move the information and Delete--HasBeen 09:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - very notable, and IMO definitely worthy of inclusion Barneyboo (Talk) 09:44, 15 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.