Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E.M.I. (Sex Pistols 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 keep. A merge consensus can be sought on the talk page. No support for deletion. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

E.M.I. (Sex Pistols song)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No claim of significant coverage which would lean towards failing WP:NMUSIC. Sheldybett (talk) 07:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Not enough for a separate article: Delete or redirect to album. —teb728 t c 07:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  ~Ruyaba~   {talk}  07:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  ~Ruyaba~   {talk}  07:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Flapjacktastic (talk) 10:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Never Mind the Bollocks, Here's the Sex Pistols. It was never a single, but it's one of the album's best-known tracks, so it's quite possible someone will use it as a search term, even though it doesn't have enough content for a stand-alone article. Richard3120 (talk) 12:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC) Struck previous vote as article has gained some sources since then – see my comment below. Richard3120 (talk) 14:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Never Mind the Bollocks, Here's the Sex Pistols per above comment. Aoba47 (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep It's easy to find detailed coverage where the track was recorded and rerecorded, an explanation of the lyrics, &c. It's one of the 50 Songs That Changed the 20th Century and so clearly has a distinct identity.  Andrew D. (talk) 09:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * you are incorrect in your assertion that it was one of the "50 songs that changed the 20th century"... the Sex Pistols song included in that book is "God Save the Queen", not "E.M.I.". The other two sources you cite discuss the song within the context of the album, and have information about every song the Sex Pistols ever recorded... by your logic, every Sex Pistols song should have its own article, despite the fact they will all be stubs apart from the singles. It's far better to include this brief information in the album article, in my opinion, where information about the album's recording can be gathered in one place, rather than split over 11 articles. Richard3120 (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems like the 25 Albums that Rocked the World source has information on every song on Never Mind the Bollocks, Here's the Sex Pistols, which I gather does not quite encompass every song they ever recorded. The book gives some songs (e.g. Problem, Liar) less than half a page, but devotes more than a page to E.M.I..
 * Further, I don't think it's a priori absurd to entertain the idea that every song on an album might be notable, provided we're talking about an exceptionally influential album. For example, it seems there are articles for every song on A Hard Day's Night and Help!. Colin M (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep As a former disc jockey, this is an important song. It was possibly the most popular Sex Pistols song on College Radio in the 1980s, later eclipsed by My Way after the release of the movie Goodfellas. I’m still in the process of bulking up the page, but as you can see, it is already important enough not to be deleted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fielding99 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * All you've done is added two primary sources (the Pistols' own web site and the record label's site of the re-release), a live review which mentions the song in passing, and a Rolling Stone article which, again, talks about the song in the context of the album as a whole, plus an unsubstantiated assertion that "this was the most popular song on college radio in the US". Richard3120 (talk) 13:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Current sourcing is a bit thin, but I'm convinced there's enough coverage out there to establish notability. The first source turned up by Andrew D. above (25 Albums that Rocked the World) has some especially good detail. Colin M (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Again... it talks about the song within the context of the album. If, as should correctly happen, the album article is expanded with details of the recording of each track, does that mean we should duplicate this information across 11 separate song articles as well? And being "convinced there's enough coverage out there" isn't good enough – you have to prove that, not just think it. Richard3120 (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If, as should correctly happen, the album article is expanded with details of the recording of each track... this is an interesting idea. If you believe this is the correct way forward, may I ask why you voted 'Redirect' rather than 'Merge'? I didn't consider this as an option because I've never seen an album article structured in this way, and it's not clear to me how it would be accomplished logistically. Would you integrate this detail into the Track listing section? It doesn't seem compatible with the tracklist template used there and in most album articles. Would you replace the Track listing section with a new section having subsections for each song? Would you instead add a new section in addition to the Track listing section? If you can point to an article that has accomplished something like this successfully, or you have a good faith proposal as to how the formatting and organization should be done, I'd certainly consider changing my vote to 'Merge'.
 * And being "convinced there's enough coverage out there" isn't good enough Sorry, I should have perhaps been more forceful in my wording. I'm convinced that the existing sources listed in the article combined with the ones turned up by Andrew D. constitute enough coverage to establish notability. Colin M (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I voted "redirect" because at the time, this was the version of the article that existed... as you can see, it was completely unsourced. Yes, I should probably change my vote to "merge" now. I'm still not convinced there is enough to warrant a separate article – the second paragraph in the current version of the article is a quote from John Lydon, and actually only the second and third sentences (both very short) are directly relevant to the song... the rest of the quote is talking about his views of the record label (I know the song is about the label, but talking about T-shirts doesn't seem particularly relevant to the song, in my opinion, and per WP:QUOTEFARM lengthy quotes shouldn't be included in articles). The 25 Albums that Rocked the World book really only has two sentences about the recording – the rest of it is the author's personal opinion of the song's merits. I know there are albums (usually Beatles albums) where every song has its own article, but they usually have more detail than this article... I'm just worried that once you take out the primary sources and the lengthy quote from Lydon, the article will probably be half a dozen lines long.
 * I wouldn't incorporate it into the track listing, no – most albums that are GA or near-GA status do include separate sections on "Recording" and "Writing and composition" or "Songs", or headings to that effect. So you could include the information across one or both of those sections. Never Mind the Bollocks is an album high up on my "to do" list when I get the time. Richard3120 (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I've rewritten the article to include the new sources found by Andrew D, removed the primary sources and trimmed the overlong quote from Lydon. I still believe that this article is too short to warrant a separate article and would be best to merge with Never Mind the Bollocks, Here's the Sex Pistols. Richard3120 (talk) 14:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - truly a cult classic of there ever was one. I would not object to a merger. Bearian (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Isn't that just a WP:ILIKEIT argument, or maybe WP:FAME? Calling it a "cult classic" is pretty subjective. Richard3120 (talk) 11:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 04:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge Songs need independent, reliable sources. A couple books about rock aren’t enough. Merging with the album is the only logical thing here. Trillfendi (talk) 05:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate on your reasoning? Are you saying books about rock are not reliable sources? Or do you have a reason to think that the particular books about rock cited in this discussion and in the article aren't reliable? Or are you saying they are reliable, but that "a couple" reliable sources isn't enough? Colin M (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets WP:GNG. For example, The Independent describes E.M.I. as "[ranking] alongside Graham Parker's "Mercury Poisoning" as the most gleeful rant at a record company ever recorded." Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  11:16, 8 March 2019 (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.