Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Hummingbird Heartbeat: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:25, 3 March 2013 editStatus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors69,287 edits →Hummingbird Heartbeat: re← Previous edit Latest revision as of 07:40, 13 March 2023 edit undoLegobot (talk | contribs)Bots1,668,134 editsm Bot: Fixing lint errors, replacing obsolete HTML tags: <font> (20x)Tag: Fixed lint errors 
(14 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ] or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''
<!--Template:Afd top

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was '''keep'''. (]) ]] 22:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Notes: The keep camp argues enough of ] has been met including ]. The delete camp has legitimate concerns about the quality of sources but it does not change the fact that the song is notable under Wiki guidelines. A merge argument was mentioned but against ] repeated content is a content editing issue and the article at present appears to have enough for a standalone article. ]] 23:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

===]=== ===]===
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|M}}


:{{la|Hummingbird Heartbeat}} – (<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks"></span>) :{{la|Hummingbird Heartbeat}} – (<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks"></span>)
:({{Find sources|Hummingbird Heartbeat}}) :({{Find sources|Hummingbird Heartbeat}})
Fails ]. No significant coverage, and the section that has significant coverage derives from a primary source. Everything else is in the context of the album. ] 00:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC) Fails ]. No significant coverage, and the section that has significant coverage derives from a primary source. Everything else is in the context of the album. ] 00:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the ]. ] (]) 00:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)</small> :<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the ]. ] (]) 00:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)</small>


*'''Merge''', the songs from '']'' already have quite a bit of a mention. This page re-hashes a lot of that material with a dodgy release sourced from The Music Network which in itself is a ] but Australia is not a music market where radio-only releases and there's no other coverage regarding its supposed release. Not really likely to grow beyond a stub. &mdash; ] </sup></font>''']] 17:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC) *'''Merge''', the songs from '']'' already have quite a bit of a mention. This page re-hashes a lot of that material with a dodgy release sourced from The Music Network which in itself is a ] but Australia is not a music market where radio-only releases and there's no other coverage regarding its supposed release. Not really likely to grow beyond a stub. &mdash; ] </sup>''']] 17:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - substantially sourced, Google search of song reveals over 800,000 results. <span style="font-family:'tahoma bold',serif;border:1px solid Black;">]]</span> 15:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC) *'''Keep''' - substantially sourced, Google search of song reveals over 800,000 results. <span style="font-family:'tahoma bold',serif;border:1px solid Black;">]]</span> 15:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
**Please refer to ] ] 23:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC) **Please refer to ] ] 23:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


*'''Keep''' was released as a single, has charted, has a music video (that isn't included in the article), has the possibility to be expanded more. <font face="Arial" size="2em">&nbsp;—&nbsp;]&nbsp;(], ])</font> 16:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC) *'''Keep''' was released as a single, has charted, has a music video (that isn't included in the article), has the possibility to be expanded more. <span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: small;">&nbsp;—&nbsp;]&nbsp;(], ])</span> 16:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


*'''Keep''' - Per above &nbsp;—&nbsp;] &bull; ] 20:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC) *'''Keep''' - Per above &nbsp;—&nbsp;] &bull; ] 20:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


*'''Keep''' I believe that this article meets our notability guidelines. It is a single that has a considerable amount of coverage, apart from the chart positions it snatched. No reason to delete. — ]] 00:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC) *'''Keep''' I believe that this article meets our notability guidelines. It is a single that has a considerable amount of coverage, apart from the chart positions it snatched. No reason to delete. — ]] 00:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
**An article cannot "meet our notability guidelines". The ''function'' of an article can, but that's it. The song does not have a considerable amount of coverage per the indepth analysis of the sources. ] 02:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC) **An article cannot "meet our notability guidelines". The ''function'' of an article can, but that's it. The song does not have a considerable amount of coverage per the indepth analysis of the sources. ] 02:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


*I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that it charted. What we are here for is a lack of indepth coverage from third-party sources (see nom statement). *I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that it charted. What we are here for is a lack of indepth coverage from third-party sources (see nom statement).
Line 33: Line 42:
:#Has 1 sentence about this song ("The title cut and “Hummingbird Heartbeat” are also top-down bangers") :#Has 1 sentence about this song ("The title cut and “Hummingbird Heartbeat” are also top-down bangers")
:#Contains 1 line ("The catchy, uptempo "Hummingbird Heartbeat" is perhaps best in line with the album's five No. 1s.") No significant coverage. :#Contains 1 line ("The catchy, uptempo "Hummingbird Heartbeat" is perhaps best in line with the album's five No. 1s.") No significant coverage.
:#Verifies a poor chart position. No coverage. ] 02:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC) :#Verifies a poor chart position. No coverage. ] 02:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
::Combing through what's ''in'' the article doesn't do any good to verify if a song is '''notable'''. The article ''clearly'' isn't complete. <font face="Arial" size="2em">&nbsp;—&nbsp;]&nbsp;(], ])</font> 17:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC) ::Combing through what's ''in'' the article doesn't do any good to verify if a song is '''notable'''. The article ''clearly'' isn't complete. <span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: small;">&nbsp;—&nbsp;]&nbsp;(], ])</span> 17:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
:::I didn't find anything significant outside of the article. ] 02:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

'''Keep''' – Clearly within the scope of expansion and notable as a standalone individual article. —] · <sup>] ]</sup> 03:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
:You obviously didn't bother to read any of the text above, because if you did you would realise that the song is not notable and failed to attract significant coverage from third-party sources. ] 05:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
::Till, in the politest way possible, stop being a patronizer and don't jump into conclusion regarding whether I read or not and I still believe it should be kept. —] · <sup>] ]</sup> 14:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
:::And FYI, its a collaborative consensus, your "I didn't find anything significant" is of no significance here. If the community believes it should be kept, it should be kept. —] · <sup>] ]</sup> 15:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
:::: Obviously it's your first time here: consensus is reflected by policy regardless of how many people vote "keep". The fact of the matter is that none of the keep !votes have addressed the issue of the song not attracting any third-party significant coverage. ] 15:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ] or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>

Latest revision as of 07:40, 13 March 2023

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Mkdw 22:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Notes: The keep camp argues enough of WP:NSONG has been met including WP:N. The delete camp has legitimate concerns about the quality of sources but it does not change the fact that the song is notable under Wiki guidelines. A merge argument was mentioned but against WP:NSONG repeated content is a content editing issue and the article at present appears to have enough for a standalone article. Mkdw 23:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hummingbird Heartbeat

Hummingbird Heartbeat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage, and the section that has significant coverage derives from a primary source. Everything else is in the context of the album. Till 00:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep I believe that this article meets our notability guidelines. It is a single that has a considerable amount of coverage, apart from the chart positions it snatched. No reason to delete. — ΛΧΣ 00:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
    • An article cannot "meet our notability guidelines". The function of an article can, but that's it. The song does not have a considerable amount of coverage per the indepth analysis of the sources. Till 02:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that it charted. What we are here for is a lack of indepth coverage from third-party sources (see nom statement).
  1. Contains 2 short lines about the song ("There's a song called 'Hummingbird Heartbeat'. He gives me that 'Hummingbird Heartbeat', she said."). No significant covreage.
  2. A YouTube video, not a third-party independent source.
  3. Contains 1 line ("Even 'Hummingbird Heartbeat', which sounds like an 80s hair metal anthem (including the easy-to-sing chorus), sadly falls a bit short of the mark."). No significant coverage.
  4. Gets 2 sentences as part of an album review. No significant coverage.
  5. A music sheet source. Not independent/no coverage
  6. Same as 5
  7. Album liner notes. Not independent of the topic.
  8. "Popcrush" isn't a reliable source
  9. Verifies an apparant chart position on radio. No significant coverage.
  10. Same as 9
  11. Gets 2 sentences like all the other tracks on the album. No significant coverage.
  12. Has 1 sentence about this song ("The title cut and “Hummingbird Heartbeat” are also top-down bangers")
  13. Contains 1 line ("The catchy, uptempo "Hummingbird Heartbeat" is perhaps best in line with the album's five No. 1s.") No significant coverage.
  14. Verifies a poor chart position. No coverage. Till 02:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Combing through what's in the article doesn't do any good to verify if a song is notable. The article clearly isn't complete.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 17:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I didn't find anything significant outside of the article. Till 02:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep – Clearly within the scope of expansion and notable as a standalone individual article. —Indian:BIO · 03:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

You obviously didn't bother to read any of the text above, because if you did you would realise that the song is not notable and failed to attract significant coverage from third-party sources. Till 05:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Till, in the politest way possible, stop being a patronizer and don't jump into conclusion regarding whether I read or not and I still believe it should be kept. —Indian:BIO · 14:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
And FYI, its a collaborative consensus, your "I didn't find anything significant" is of no significance here. If the community believes it should be kept, it should be kept. —Indian:BIO · 15:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Obviously it's your first time here: consensus is reflected by policy regardless of how many people vote "keep". The fact of the matter is that none of the keep !votes have addressed the issue of the song not attracting any third-party significant coverage. Till 15:25, 4 March 2013 (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.