Talk:L.A. Woman

Proposed merge of The Changeling (The Doors song) into L.A. Woman

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion at Articles_for_deletion/The_Changeling_(The_Doors_song) has suggested this page should be merged to the album's article.    Kadzi    (talk) 13:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Since it doesn't meet NSONGS for a stand-alone article, add the useful parts to the second paragraph of L.A. Woman where the song is discussed. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge for sure. Binksternet (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Now merged. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree, and I an undoing the merge. We need more participation than this. The AfD could have been closed as a No consensus. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs )~ 16:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The merge followed the suggested procedure at WP:MERGECLOSE: "Any user may close the discussion and move forward with the merger if enough time (normally one week or more) has elapsed and there has been no discussion or if there is unanimous consent to merge" [emphasis added] Ten days have passed and no one objected until after the fact. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It might meet the letter not the spirit. Fact is, if you combine the Afd with what little discussion there is, it certainly was not unanimous. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs )~ 17:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * [copied from User talk:Ojorojo, let's keep it in one place] Number of views is irrelevent, the problem was lack of participation. Honestly the AfD should have been relisted, and not closed by a non-admin. Why are you so eager to delete? ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs )~ 17:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Participation is irrelevant: with 6,284 views, if people do not participate, they are not interested. According to MERGECLOSE, a merge may proceed when "there has been no discussion", so participation is not necessary. You did not participate in the merge discussion (two votes for "merge" vs. none), so why is it so important now?
 * Regarding the article's merits: it was created by copying exactly several sentences from the L.A. Woman article by a suspected well-known vandal:
 * "L.A. Woman opens with the Morrison-penned track "The Changeling", which the Doors wanted to be the album's first single. Taken from one of Morrison's notebooks written in 1968, Holzman overruled the group's decision in favor of "Love Her Madly" and the non-album B-side "(You Need Meat) Don't Go No Further".[22] Author James Riordan has noted the song's mention of the "changeling", or spirit child, may be another reference to Morrison's difficult childhood.[30] The funky James Brown-esque composition also appears to anticipate the singer's departure from Los Angeles with the line "I'm leavin' town on the midnight train".[31]"


 * Is this what you're so interested in preserving?
 * —Ojorojo (talk) 18:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I would argue that participation is more important than mere viewrship of a page. The reason I did not participate was because I wasn't following the discussion closely enough. Are you sure the article creator is a vandal, I saw several of his contribs and they looked productive. Also I added on to the initial version with material that wouldn't really fit in the album article. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs )~ 20:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, give it a few more days. —Ojorojo (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose deletion or merge, on the basis that it was the bands first choice as a single, is well covered by sources, was one of Morrison's favourite Doors tracks, and that this set a poor precedent for the many other well sources non album tracks on wiki. Ceoil  (talk) 03:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NSONGS requires a song to be "the subject[1] of multiple,[2] non-trivial[3] published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work.[4] Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability." [emphasis added] As pointed out in the AfD, "The Changeling" is only mentioned in passing in album reviews/analyses (L.A. Woman reviews in AllMusic, Rolling Stone, PopMatters, etc.) and by the artist and producer themselves (Morrison's offhand comment in the studio). There is simply not "enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". In fact, a large part of the current article was copied from the album article, so a merge/redirect is entirely appropriate. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That "a large part of the current article was copied from the album article" is a historically irrelevant fact. More pertinent is that the article stands on its own merits, for the reasons already given above. ps, noting that your survey of the literature is the essance of OTHERSTUFFDOESTEXISTIFIHANNTTSEEN IT. Ceoil  (talk) 15:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It illustrates the NSONGS point that "If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created." If the song is the subject of "multiple, non-trivial published works", why are these not used instead of album reviews? —Ojorojo (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Now you are just arguing past me, and making the same, refuted, point again. why are these not used instead of album reviews - because the article, like any on wiki, is not finished. Note that the reasons I gave above were not dreamed up by album reviewers, so other sources exists; my hunch being they come from Danny Sugerman's book, and prob others.  Ceoil  (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.