Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Another One Bites the Dust (1998 song)


 * 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 merge. Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! ☺  21:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Another One Bites the Dust (1998 song)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The covered song has already been noted in the original song's article, Another One Bites the Dust. Kodster (talk) 02:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete In order for this song to be notable, it has to have objective evidence from independent sources (as per the Notability Wikipedia Guidelines). The 1998 song has no objective evidence stating that it is notable, and thus should be deleted. Feel free to post on my talk page. Thanks.--Kodster (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, The thing is guys, the cover is already mentioned in the original article. There's no point of keeping it, no matter how "notable" it is. If it's already mentioned, having a separate article is redundant and counterintuitive. See versions of Another One Bites the Dust for clarification.
 * Delete, department of redundancy department. Travellingcari (talk) 02:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The lyrics to the Wyclef Jean rap song are substantially different from the Queen original, although the chorus is the same. One might as well merge "Ice Ice Baby" to "Under Pressure" Mandsford (talk) 02:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Mandsford.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 02:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, do not merge. The song is independently notable as per WP:MUSIC and is quite different from the original Queen version, as noted. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 02:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Reading WP:MUSIC makes me believe this song is not notable. Being a top ten hit in of itself is not notable. This version just brings more notability to the original. --Wolfer68 (talk) 08:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:MUSIC says "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts [...] are probably notable." This song, as the remix, has ranked on two national top ten lists, and was the artist's third song to have done so. This song, as the remix, also appeared in a notable film. We have sources to verify that information, so it has and demonstrates notability outside of the original Queen version. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 19:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * But it also says, "A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". While the information is verifiable, the article is not reasonably detailed.--Wolfer68 (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete If there was more information maybe, but there's no information here that can't be incorporated into the Another One Bites the Dust page, where this cover is already mentioned. And regardless of how much it is different, it's still credited as a Queen song. --Wolfer68 (talk) 03:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Although the words are different, since it seems like this one was based on Another One Bites the Dust, it can be merged into the latter.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 03:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep probably notable on its own, though I would prefer to see it redirected to the original. JJL (talk) 05:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's not just a cover, it's a remix, and it was a top-ten charting hit. I think that establishes independent notability. --Dhartung | Talk 05:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.   —86.149.53.196 (talk) 08:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and Merge into Another One Bites the Dust. We don't usually have seperate articles for cover versions, and nor should we for remixes. The song is still credited to Queen. The analogy with "Ice Ice Baby" made above by Mandsford is patently false; that was a completely different song credited to a different artist which merely sampled the Queen song. PC78 (talk) 13:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe if you patently compared the lyrics of the two songs, you'd understand...Mandsford (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with Another One Bites the Dust. Basically the same song; even the cover mentions Queen. – sgeureka t•c 14:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, although if there's more useful information that can be merged into the main article on Queen's song, then that should also be done (I don't think there's a whole heap thereof). This is a cover of a notable song, rather than a separately notable song which happens to sample another notable song, so any Vanilla Ice analogies shouldn't be entertained here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as above. Covers typically don't merit their own article and nothing here argues for an exception. Eusebeus (talk) 00:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep (Merge ?)  : the song was charted in many countries, such as France, Switzerland, Austria, Belgium, Norway, New Zealand, Finland, Sweden, Netherlands... Notable. Europe22 (talk) 03:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge Information contained in the article about the song is certainly notable, but would be better served in putting it as a version of the original. A redirect could be used to point to that section of the article. — BQZip01 —  talk 06:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge. Agree that the remix is notable, but disagree that a separate article is necessary to document that. Most of this information is already in Another One Bites the Dust. The rest can easily be added there. The fact that lyrics may have been altered doesn't seem persuasive to me. That fact can be noted in the parent article as well. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:59, 1 March 2008 (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.