Talk:Shanghai'd in Shanghai

Article in its own right
In response to your question "What exactly does notability aside mean?" I provided the source that answered that question, but you apparently didn't read it. The basis is there to redirect the song article to the album article. Constantly reverting amounts to thumbing your nose at the guidelines. Caper454 (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Having been editing for many years, of course I have read it. The stub for this CHARTING song provides lyrics, personnel, chart position verification, its sequence in the groups hits, the producer etc.. Yes it's a stub but we are trying to grow an encyclopedia. Your constant petulant reversal of my edits are counter productive. You add nothing.--Egghead06 (talk) 06:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that following the rules is "petulent". The song only just by the thinnest measure meets notability guidelines, but as the guidelines state this alone isn't enough to warrant a standalone article when there is virtually zero information of any significance in the article. I mean, do you really believe that listing the band personnel sufficiently rounds out a song article....a song that didn't even crack the top 40? You criticize me for "adding nothing" but what have you added? Looks like nothing from my point of view. And one more thing: this article was previously (and correctly) redirected back in October 2011‎ and stood until you reverted it without explanation a few weeks ago. So there is a precedent there. You seem to be letting personal feelings cloud your judgement. Caper454 (talk) 12:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Did I say following rules was petulant ? Do I know you? No, so how do you know my personal feelings? You are welcome to your view. Either it passes notability or it doesn't - fat or thin. It passes and your attitude is not one which helps grow an encylopedia. --Egghead06 (talk) 13:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And please check the article history again. Your statement above is incorrect.--Egghead06 (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Adding a couple of categories doesn't elevate an article to non-stub status by any means, nor does it effect notability. Caper454 (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't but that isn't what happened now is it? But then you knew that!--Egghead06 (talk) 14:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Now you're just being cryptic. Could you be a bit more concise? Caper454 (talk) 14:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I see now you are also canvassing to get you own way. You do know any notifications of this sort are supposed to be neutral now don't you?--Egghead06 (talk) 14:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Attempts to broaden participation to more fully achieve consensus is perfectly acceptable. What you refer to with apparent disdain as "you own way" (sic) is in actuality nothing more than what the guidelines urge; to redirect this article to the album article. Is that somehow worse than monitoring another users editing? Now, are you going to discuss the issue at all or simply continue to make it all about me? Caper454 (talk) 15:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The guidelines urge this for articles unlikely to grow. How can you ever predict that? As to your canvassing, it's not the done thing you know. Please try to remain neutral when seeking views. --Egghead06 (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * To be perfectly honest with you Egghead, I have butted heads in the past with the users I invited to the discussion. So for you to imply that I'm inviting only like-minded editors who are likely to side with me is presumptuous and false. I simply invited editors who I viewed as active and knowledgeable. Caper454 (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I have removed (now twice) an unreliable source (Discogs, which is 100% not reliable for Wikipedia). It should not be re-added. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * a scruffy five year old discussion is not a guideline nor does it act as consensus--Egghead06 (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It actually does act as consensus; the reason the discussion is short is because it obviously doesn't pass WP:RS. You'll notice WP:ALBUM/SOURCES also clearly states that it is not reliable, due to a lack of editorial oversight. Anyway, I'm reverting your re-addition of this unreliable source one last time; if you revert me, you will be in violation of WP:3RR, and I will start a case at WP:ANEW for your behaviour. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, I've taken a look at this article. So far it does not pass WP:NSONGS for the following reasons:
 * 1. "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works". So far there is only one source on this article, which confirms a chart position; this hardly counts as "multiple, non-trivial published works".
 * 2. "a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". This article does not even come close to being "reasonably detailed". It simply lists who played on the song, when it was released, what album it is from, and a chart position. As a comparison, here is an article that is "reasonably detailed": Money (Pink Floyd song). Notice how there is a discussion of the song's composition, discussion on its recording, and more information about the song. It's true that this song may not have quite the depth of information as "Money", but it should still have more than 6 sentences that don't establish its notability.
 * It also does not pass WP:GNG for the following reasons:
 * 1. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources" (emphasis mine): Currently there are zero reliable sources here covering the song (a chart position is hardly "coverage"). Obviously this fails to show "significant coverage".
 * 2. "multiple sources are generally expected": Currently, there is one source.
 * Overall, I'm not seeing anything that makes this article notable, and it should be redirected back to either the album or the band. If Egghead06 or anyone else disagrees, the best course of action from here would be to list this article for deletion at WP:AFD, and let an admin come to a conclusion after discussion. At that point, the article could be userfied into Egghead06's user space, where they can continue to work on it until it is suitable to become a proper article. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * you are both cherry picking the parts you want from these so called guidelines. Firstly no one has answered the question of how can anyone know the article cannot be expanded. Secondly the comments on Discogs mention user generated info and not a carpet banning of this site. I welcome this being raised with a wider audience. I welcome it's raising at AFD. A far more formal way with which I will of course abide.--Egghead06 (talk) 06:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)