Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Way I Be Leanin'

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 was Redirect to Reality Check (album). — Scientizzle 23:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Way I Be Leanin'

Way I Be Leanin' (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete - there do not appear to be reliable sources attesting to the independent notability of this single. Otto4711 15:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep the article should just remain tagged as unreferenced until one is provided. No need for it to be deleted. Numerous google hits suggests that the single is notable and refs should not be hard to find.Gungadin 17:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note that counting google hits is not an acceptable method of determining the notability of a subject. Many of the google hits are for such things as download sites, lyrics databases, sites to view the video and the like and do not constitute reliable sources to establish the song's notability. Otto4711 18:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Simply not true, and just goes to show that the nominator did not do his reasearch before nominating. Online stores sell the single, there are numerous reviews and magazine interviews featuring the artist. All verifiable sources that could be used. The article needs extending and it should be sourced, but there is no need for it to be deleted.Gungadin 18:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps you should keep your opinions about my researching to yourself if you're going to fail at doing your own. Had you taken a moment to read the nomination all the way to the end to get to the link to Wikipedia:Notability, you would find that it states in relevant part that the topic must have significant coverage in independent reliable sources. "Significant coverage" means that the sources must be substantially about the subject, not simply mention it. "Reliable sources" means that the source has editorial integrity. Customer reviews on download sites are not reliable sources. Interviews with the musician, unless they are substantially about this specific single, do not establish notability. Otto4711 19:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Lame attempt to discredit my findings. The references I mention provide significant coverage. Sorry if it hampers your lust for deletion.Gungadin 19:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• You think I didn't run the same Google search you did before nominating the article? You're the one claiming that reliable sources are thick like grapes on the vine, yet you have not added those references to the article or even posted specific links to them here. So please, enlighten us. Link the sources. Otto4711 20:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

lets talk about the article. Both you guys are experienced editors. DGG (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• I am talking about the article. I'm noting that there do not appear to be any reliable sources to support the existence of the article and asking the person who says otherwise to provide those sources. Otto4711 04:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as a single by a notable musician; retain the {{unreferenced}} tag. InnocuousPseudonym 23:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Please link to the policy or guideline that states that any single is automatically notable just because it was released by a notable artist. Otto4711 04:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• WP:MUSIC#Songs isn't officially policy, but it states "A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; permanent stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as a single by a notable artist. Gareth E Kegg 12:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Notability is not inherited. Pan Dan 14:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Reality Check (album) in agreement with Hammer's quote. Multiple non-trivial reliable independent sources are needed to write a neutral article. If such sources emerge, the redirect can be undone. The sources I find (like [1]) are about the album, mentioning the song trivially, and they would support an article about the album, not the song. Pan Dan 14:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per Pan Dan. ZZ 13:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per Hammer's quote and Pan Dan. I'm unconvinced this single passes WP:N. This is constantly an issue with music groups; fans make individual articles for each track, which are not notable, except as part of the album as a whole. - superβεεcat  21:34, 23 July 2007 (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.