Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pump It
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was KEEP and MERGE. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 02:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Pump It
Apparently a charting album track from the Black Eyed Peas. Fails to establish notability (a record being a charting single does not make it inherently notable, especially since it was not a hit. I would speedy megre to the relevant album, but I wanted a consensus first. FuriousFreddy 02:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep It's notable to note singles which were available to chart without promotion. OmegaWikipedia 03:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
-
- No, it's not. Thousands of songs have charted; that does not make them inherently notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia as spereate articles. Not even the All Music Guide does that. Besides, the record charted far below number forty: are you saying that every song by every artist that ever charted deserves an article for that reason and that reason alone? Such a suggestion would be highly irrational. The article is all of about four sentence, merge it in bulk to the article on the album and discuss the fact taht the album track charted there. I'm sure the album article isn't nearly long enough to prevent such an addition.--FuriousFreddy 03:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- Thousands of songs chart each day? Um, no they don't Freddy. The Billboard Hot 100 is only made out of 100 positions. Most of the songs that chart have been promoted. It's rare to find songs that dont chart break in. Please stop twisting the facts. OmegaWikipedia 04:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- That isn't quite how I meant to word that, and I apoligize (and edited). Reworded, it makes sense. Fact of the matter is: every charting Hot 100 song is not deserving of an article, and just because a song is promoted does not make it notable. --FuriousFreddy 04:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- There's more charts than just Billboard Hot 100 (outside the US for example) and all of them chart songs. So thousands may well be accurate. - Mgm|(talk) 09:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- Merge with Monkey Business (album). --bainer (talk) 03:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, charting singles are more notable than albums. Kappa 06:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- How so? --FuriousFreddy 21:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- Because generally albums have no individual indentity. Kappa 23:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- What albums have you been listening to? Most record companies push singles so that they can sell albums. Albums having no individual identity applies primarily to older albums and compilations. --FuriousFreddy 01:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- Because generally albums have no individual indentity. Kappa 23:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- How so? --FuriousFreddy 21:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- Merge with Monkey Business (album). It's... Thelb4! 07:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- Merge as per FuriousFreddy. -- Kjkolb 08:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep single. I also dislike the notion that a single must be a "hit" to get an article. A hit from whose viewpoint? For one thing, this song was fairly successful, and is from a major album by a major artist. If it was a garage-band CD-R passed around by some kid in high school, my vote would obviously be different. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- The article is all of a few sentences long, and would fit very neatly into the album article, which is also (lists aside) very short. --FuriousFreddy 21:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- I would say keep, except there's not enough there worth keeping (yet?). So merge unless/until a lot more information makes it worth it to have its own article. I do not, however, agree that being a single is not enough to establish notability. --Jacquelyn Marie 22:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- There are far too many singles for each one to be notable just because it is a single. What can be said about most songs other than providing catalogue information on release dates, chart performances, and recording studio anecdotes. A single, something that is inherently trivial in the grand scope of an encyclopedia, needs to have some sort of importance or impact other than its general existence and chart performance to warrant having its own article. --FuriousFreddy 01:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I can concede some of the arguments you list, but I still think a charting single would be notable because enough people noticed it for it to chart. --Jacquelyn Marie 03:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- ...but when an article on a song reads simply like a catalogue listing (name, release date, label, sales, chart performance) is there a reason for a seperate article? Even an article with an expanded version of this inforamton is arbitrary. Articles are required to establish notability; saying that every charting single should be listed is like saying every book that charted on the Amazon sales list needs an article as well. --FuriousFreddy 04:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- ...whole point of Wikipedia is to have others add stuff to it, to make it more than a catalogue, no? And... all encyclopedias are arbitrary. They often don't contain information I think is important. (They may include things you don't think are important, or not include things you think are important.) Physical ones are limited by paper. Wikipedia is not. --Jacquelyn Marie 18:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- But Wikipedia articles should only be on notable sunjects. What makes this song more notable than your average song. Thousands of songs have reached the Top 100, and the very idea that they all deserve articles for that reason is absolutely ridiculous. This project is going to de-evolve into a fan-gushing vehicle with no semblance of credibility as a scholalry reference. --FuriousFreddy 20:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- ...whole point of Wikipedia is to have others add stuff to it, to make it more than a catalogue, no? And... all encyclopedias are arbitrary. They often don't contain information I think is important. (They may include things you don't think are important, or not include things you think are important.) Physical ones are limited by paper. Wikipedia is not. --Jacquelyn Marie 18:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- ...but when an article on a song reads simply like a catalogue listing (name, release date, label, sales, chart performance) is there a reason for a seperate article? Even an article with an expanded version of this inforamton is arbitrary. Articles are required to establish notability; saying that every charting single should be listed is like saying every book that charted on the Amazon sales list needs an article as well. --FuriousFreddy 04:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I can concede some of the arguments you list, but I still think a charting single would be notable because enough people noticed it for it to chart. --Jacquelyn Marie 03:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- There are far too many singles for each one to be notable just because it is a single. What can be said about most songs other than providing catalogue information on release dates, chart performances, and recording studio anecdotes. A single, something that is inherently trivial in the grand scope of an encyclopedia, needs to have some sort of importance or impact other than its general existence and chart performance to warrant having its own article. --FuriousFreddy 01:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- Merge to the album, nn single. User:Zoe|(talk) 07:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- Merge with Monkey Business (album), per nominator. Extraordinary Machine 11:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
I'd leave it, whats wrong with having a page for this song? 217.34.35.180 19:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, do not merge—to me whether it had an official single release or not is academic. The point is it charted, indicating a significant degree of popularity. Everyking 07:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Not a hit, eh, FuriousFreddy? What, have you been living in a hole? The song climbed to the top-five in the United States. Winnermario 02:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- I take back what I said about the song climbing to the top-five, as I confused the track with "My Humps". I apologize to Furious Freddy, but as the song still charted, I still vote keep. Winnermario 02:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, this is a notable track as it charted on the Hot 100. Even though you personally may not find it notable, many other people would. I think the fact that a song charted or was released makes it notable enough to have its own article. This is not just an article about some random track but one by a very popular group from one of the best selling albums of 2005 which received decent play at different radio formats and at clubs. The song was also featured in a very popular TV commercial. --Musicpvm 03:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Millions (or atl east hundreds of thosuands) of songs have been charted and/or relased over the years in various countries. There needs to be more discernemnt than that. I dont nominate articles for deletion because I personally do not find them notable; I do it when I find articles that do not meet the Wikipedia standards for notability. The album's article is very short; a simple merge would make one article better instead of keeping two stubs around. --FuriousFreddy 03:44, 7 October 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
