Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creative (song)
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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Creative (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable song, never released as a single, released as a download only and made it all the way to 94 in the UK singles charts. As far as I can tell, the song is a track on an album or EP which doesn't have an article. Recommend redirecting to Leon Jackson. Note that this article is a magnet for sock puppets of the indefinitely blocked troll Nimbley6, who may well pop up to vote in this AfD. This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 12:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Right Now (Leon Jackson album). The information about the single's chart position etc is all contained in that article. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - heh, missed Right Now (Leon Jackson album)! There's been so much Nimbley6-generated nonsense it's difficult to keep track of what's been kept and what's been deleted. I've struck the relevant part of my nom accordingly, and I'm happy to agree with your redirect suggestion. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 13:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep!! --89.240.129.91 (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC) — 89.240.129.91 (talk..contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]- Keep Keep Article, Maybe not released as a CD single but was released as a download. I See alot of stticles of songs released a download only and they havnt been delete. Why this one?? Huh?? Keep--BEP66 (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: BEP66 has been blocked for sock puppetry (aye, Nimbley6 again). Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: even ignoring Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, perhaps because those "stticles" are about notable songs that got higher than 94 in the charts? Incidentally, aren't you Nimbley6? Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Even tho the song did reach only 94 in the UK Singles Chart. Does That Matter atol!!. In my opion No, that doesnt matter. If the song didnt chart then Yes. The article would be deleted and i would vote Yes if the song didnt chart. But the song did chart in the UK Top 100. And no, Im am Not Nimbley 6. --BEP66 (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: my mistake; it's just that your close attention to spelling and grammar is identical. Perhaps you studied under the same guru? Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Oops Silly Me. It's just becuase i feel this article shouldnt be scraped from Wikipedia. It's just like saying "He Guys, Lets delete the Freddie Mercury article becuase he is dead". But i do strongly agree that this article should not be deleted just becuase it failed to enter the Top 40 and did not chart in Ireland. --BEP66 (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, that's uncanny! An IP editor just made that exact same edit, before it reverted itself! Curiously, the IP address resolves to Nimbley6's ISP, Opal Telecom. Are you sure you're not Nimbley6, because your edits and the IP's edits sure do look familiar. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:If You dont believe im not this "Nimbley 6" Charecter then fine. But I am no Nimbley 6. My Internet had stoped working and had loged me out of my account. I Didn't relise that. My Fault Sorry! --BEP66 (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So you acknowledge that the IP which !voted above and the registered editor which !voted above are one and the same? In other words, you acknowledge that you !voted twice? Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No I Didn't Vote twice. But what i happening with this article? Deleted or Not? --BEP66 (talk) 15:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ??? The IP !voted, and BEP66 !voted. BEP66 and the IP are, according to you, the same. Therefore you !voted twice. Are you now trying to claim that you're not the IP? Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK! Well i voted Twice. I Do feel this article shouldnt be deleted. Yet again i only voteted twice becuase i didnt know i was loged out. Im Sorry! --BEP66 (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, so you'll now be striking one of your !votes, now that you realise that you (ahem!) accidentally !voted twice...? Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes i will score one of the votes. I Didnt relized i was logged out (My Bad). But anyway. Is this article going to be deleted. How about i aprove the article? --BEP66 (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well go on then. Instead of posting messages about how you're going to post a message striking one of your dubious !votes, how about posting a message in which you actually, you know, do what you're promising to do? Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There You Go! But as in for the article? --BEP66 (talk) 15:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. What happens to the article is decided here by consensus. Typically an admin will come along and gauge what the consensus is, taking policy into consideration (and - purely hypothetically - whether any editors have been blocked for anything since !voting). Right now two editors are arguing for a redirect to Right Now (Leon Jackson album), and one is arguing that this single is notable and therefore deserves its own article. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There You Go! But as in for the article? --BEP66 (talk) 15:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well go on then. Instead of posting messages about how you're going to post a message striking one of your dubious !votes, how about posting a message in which you actually, you know, do what you're promising to do? Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes i will score one of the votes. I Didnt relized i was logged out (My Bad). But anyway. Is this article going to be deleted. How about i aprove the article? --BEP66 (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, so you'll now be striking one of your !votes, now that you realise that you (ahem!) accidentally !voted twice...? Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK! Well i voted Twice. I Do feel this article shouldnt be deleted. Yet again i only voteted twice becuase i didnt know i was loged out. Im Sorry! --BEP66 (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ??? The IP !voted, and BEP66 !voted. BEP66 and the IP are, according to you, the same. Therefore you !voted twice. Are you now trying to claim that you're not the IP? Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No I Didn't Vote twice. But what i happening with this article? Deleted or Not? --BEP66 (talk) 15:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So you acknowledge that the IP which !voted above and the registered editor which !voted above are one and the same? In other words, you acknowledge that you !voted twice? Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:If You dont believe im not this "Nimbley 6" Charecter then fine. But I am no Nimbley 6. My Internet had stoped working and had loged me out of my account. I Didn't relise that. My Fault Sorry! --BEP66 (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, that's uncanny! An IP editor just made that exact same edit, before it reverted itself! Curiously, the IP address resolves to Nimbley6's ISP, Opal Telecom. Are you sure you're not Nimbley6, because your edits and the IP's edits sure do look familiar. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Oops Silly Me. It's just becuase i feel this article shouldnt be scraped from Wikipedia. It's just like saying "He Guys, Lets delete the Freddie Mercury article becuase he is dead". But i do strongly agree that this article should not be deleted just becuase it failed to enter the Top 40 and did not chart in Ireland. --BEP66 (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: my mistake; it's just that your close attention to spelling and grammar is identical. Perhaps you studied under the same guru? Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Even tho the song did reach only 94 in the UK Singles Chart. Does That Matter atol!!. In my opion No, that doesnt matter. If the song didnt chart then Yes. The article would be deleted and i would vote Yes if the song didnt chart. But the song did chart in the UK Top 100. And no, Im am Not Nimbley 6. --BEP66 (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —TexasAndroid (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (undent) I Feel this article should stay as it is and shouldnt be redirected to Right Now!. --BEP66 (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Right Now (Leon Jackson album). No merge necessary since stuff is there already. No prejudice to recreation if this charts and gets more coverage. BEP66, note that it shouldn't really have a separate article until that point - the redirect should be fine. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No I Disagree there, The song deserves it own article! --BEP66 (talk) 16:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You've mentioned that. No offense, but you don't need to repeat yoruself. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No I Disagree there, The song deserves it own article! --BEP66 (talk) 16:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the song reached 90-something in the UK Singles Chart, and although the top 200 songs are compiled, the official chart is only considered to contain the top 75 songs. That means it officially failed to chart. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And that doesnt matter. It Made the UK Top 100, Chart Positions dont matter. The song didnt fail to chart. Charting outside the top 200 is failing to chart. --BEP66 (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unlikely redirect term, fails notability guidelines established per WP:NSONGS as it barely charted and did not receive third party coverage. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a non-plausible redirect term, fails the criteria in WP:MUSIC#Songs. While it may have charted, there is not "enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". Lacks significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb "Klat" 23:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per Tenpound and Esradekan. Not a plausible search term, and no secondary coverage. FingersOnRoids 01:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.