Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emoji (Ronny J and XXXTentacion 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to Ronny J. The only argument against a merger is that there isn't a primary target; but the title of this article is so specific that the redirect target is almost irrelevant; and there's no reason the content can't be merged to multiple places. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Emoji (Ronny J and XXXTentacion song)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Doesn't meet WP:NSONG or WP:GNG. PROD removed without explanation. Deauthorized. (talk) 08:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Consensus for redirecting has been established, however, it is unclear which article it should be redirected to… Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Deauthorized. (talk) 08:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge to Ronny J as WP:ATD. &mdash;siro&chi;o 08:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Ronny J: All I could find was this and I don't know what this is, a shame such big names did not make the news.  dxneo  (talk) 12:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect to XXXTentacion, as all I could find with a GNews search were news pieces simply announcing the song's release. In the few years after his death, songs recorded by him were still being released and having a good chart run, but if this is any indication, that seems to have run dried. User:HumanxAnthro ( Banjo x Kazooie ) 15:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * , looking at recent recording by Ronny J, they are released by the labels Listen Up Forever Record and Create Music Group Inc, same as the this song here. I think it's only fair if it is redirected to Ronny J.  dxneo  (talk) 17:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Merge either to Ronny J or XXXTentacion--- Tumbuka Arch  ★★★  12:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , per what reasons?  dxneo  (talk) 23:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Dxneo there are very less sources mentioning or discussing this. Apart from this site which you have already pointed, it's all I could find too. I don't see much of the other reliable sites covering it. While the individuals may be legends or whatsoever, however, on Wikipedia, we go by reliable sources to support a subject to be a standalone article.-- Tumbuka Arch  ★★★  00:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , at this point I believe the article has already drowned so my question is actually on WP:AtD, why merging rather than redirecting?  dxneo  (talk) 00:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep for practical reasons. There is no primary redirect target as either Ronny J or XXXTentacion could be the target. There is therefore a valid navigational need to keep the article. The content's verifiable to cited sources so I don't see that keeping a short article is detrimental in anyway to the encyclopedia even if the references don't rise to the level of significant coverage that we require per GNG. A disambiguation page could be created in place of an article as an alternative; although I think the current version of the article would better service wikipedia's readers. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , not having a target to redirect to is not a valid reason to an article that does not pass the mininum requirements listed under WP:NMUSIC. At this point a fair redirect target is Ronny J as this single was released through his now record label(s).  dxneo  (talk) 20:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @ Actually it is entirely valid per our policies at Disambiguation and more specifically WP:NOPRIMARY. Notability policy does not trump disambiguation policy or our policy language in relation to redirects; nor does it supersede our policies on content forks. Navigation needs are a valid reason to keep an article; although it may mean adapting the article into a disambiguation page. But as I stated above, WP:COMMONSENSE in this case makes an article page more useful than a dab page in this case. Otherwise we create a DAB page which links to both primary targets, and then merge the content into both articles and create an redundant WP:CONTENTFORK. To my mind keeping the article is an easier and prefereble solution. We have WP:IAR as a policy for a reason; particularly when practical solutions are better than strictly following policy language.4meter4 (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , creating a DAB which links both primary targets seems like a good way to go. .  dxneo  (talk) 20:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you are thanking me... A disambiguation page is a workable solution, but as I stated I prefer keeping the article as opposed to creating a dab page and merging identical content into two separate article per our policy on content forks.4meter4 (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm also opposed to keeping the article, sooner or later someone is going to tag it for deletion once again.  dxneo  (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2023 (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.