Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anger (song)

Add links
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 redirect to Here, My Dear. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 20:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anger (song)

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. It's a single by a notable artist, but there is no significant coverage, it never charted, received no awards. Aside from that, the article is unsourced and consists mostly of some OR on the lyrical content. Lennart97 (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I don't mind you removing it. When I first created it, I knew nothing about how to add sources at the time. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 17:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Tagged for notability since 2015. –Cupper52Discuss! 18:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does the subject receive in-depth significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent secondary sources? In-depth means the subject receives comprehensive and thorough coverage. Significant means the subject receives coverage that is sufficiently great or important enough to be worthy of attention. We all know what reliable, independent and secondary is. Multiple doesn't simply mean more than one, numerically. It actually means the subject receives separate coverage in more than one source as presented from different angles. If five reliable sources all report the same thing it is considered ONE source. The subject of this article fails WP:N in those regards. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 18:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tsistunagiska: Just wondering, do you post this same paragraph at every deletion discussion? Honestly, I don't see the point of that, as it doesn't demonstrate that you've actually looked into the specific article up for discussion (although I obviously assume that you have). Additionally, I assume everyone here knows how notability works, so there's no need for you to explain that in your vote. Lennart97 (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lennart97, could you point in a different direction while assuming, please and thank you? ;-) --ARoseWolf (Talk) 19:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, can you tell me what I assumed in which direction? Lennart97 (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was busy looking up other topics so I missed it but the evidence was left all over my screen when I returned. :-\ Lennart97 (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC) is your signature, right? --ARoseWolf (Talk) 19:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think they're just saying you can just link to WP:GNG rather than copy/pasting its contents like this. Especially in clear cut situations like this. You don't need to go into great detail about what significant coverage means when there's no sourcing at all currently present. Sergecross73 msg me 19:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip. I think I'll stick with stating facts. People keep proving that they don't really understand notability. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 19:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tsistunagiska: If by 'stating facts' you mean your current approach, please don't. Concerning People keep proving that they don't really understand notability.: assuming incompetence is no better than assuming bad faith. Also, why did you think it's okay to use my signature? It's not, please don't ever do that again. Lennart97 (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to tag me, it's a waste of extra time on your part since I see every post here anyway. In regards to what I wrote here, prove anything I said as false and I will acknowledge it, otherwise, if you just don't like what I write then offer your !vote and move on. Why did you think it was ok to ever say anything directly to me in your condescending tone to begin with? If you can't take it back at you then don't bring it in the first place. Buh bye, now. Have a nice day! --ARoseWolf (Talk) 20:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Needlessly aggressive response, both here and below. You could have simply acknowledged, or even ignored, my initial comment to your vote, but you chose not to, and then you chose to use my signature for reasons still unclear to me, which I still ask you to explain. Lennart97 (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Really, I mean, really?? You tag me, aggressively, and then expect me not to respond at all? Why did you tag me in the first place? Did you honestly believe anything you said was going to change my opinion? Let me answer that for you. No. You did it because you like to throw your opinions at others and get offended when they respond to you in kind. In regards to your signature, you acted puzzled that I commented on your assuming in a certain direction and I was sore afraid that your account had possibly been hacked and I wanted to confirm that it was, in fact, your signature and you did make assumptions in my direction which you subsequently confirmed to my overwhelming relief. I have no reason to post your signature anymore since I know it is you. Take care and be safe --ARoseWolf (Talk) 21:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just leave this here and this. Good luck with that. Lennart97 (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No one has said you're wrong, they're just saying it's excessive. Please don't take it so personally. We all have the same stance overall, so there's no need to fight. Sergecross73 msg me 21:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? While I appreciate your opinion I find it hard to take serious considering we have examples of mounds of text written on AfD's but I have never seen any of you comment on those. I'm so sorry my six sentence condensed explanation of the facts about the criteria we are supposed to evaluate every article by is affecting you all in such a negative way. I'll take your well-being into consideration going forward. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 21:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I follow. I dont recall ever interacting with you at AFD before, so I'm puzzled that you have criticisms on my past comments at AFD. Regardless, it has no bearing on this AFDs outcome, and you seem to have no interest in not taking things personally, so I will leave you be. Take care. Sergecross73 msg me 21:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm puzzled. I never criticized your comments on the actual article or on any other article. I only pointed to the obvious singling out of my condensed version of the usual wall of text you see other editors put on AfD's that I have never seen the two of you comment on before. Also pointing out that your comments on my evaluation has nothing to do with the validity of the discussion so it was kinda pointless to ever bring up on your part. But I agree, take care and be safe. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 21:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:09, 19 January 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anger_(song)&oldid=1002089306"