Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High-Tech Redneck (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   no consensus. Note that three or more of the keep votes were issued by the same user. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

High-Tech Redneck (song)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Another low-charting song with an unsourced stub of an article; simply charting is not a free pass to notability. I have searched but been unable to find anything that would expand this beyond a stub, and the author has no intention of ever making this a redirect. Compare If I Was a Drinkin' Man, which was successfully deleted here for much the same reason, despite being a chart single in its own right. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The personal animus that TenPoundHammer had against the song If I Was A Drinkin' Man(a hit single by Neal McCoy) was over the top. The song went to #16 in BILLBOARD!!! and was a significant career single for Neal McCoy on Atlantic Records. TenPoundHammer also refused to believe the song was an ASCAP Award winner. Any article about a song/single that wins an ASCAP Award for one of the "most performed Country songs" of the year, should not be deleted, but I gave in to TenPoundHammer's persistent self-perceived authority. Here again folks, we have another incident where TenPoundHammer's actions are running good less-experienced editors off of Wikipedia, and for every good editor he runs off, there are probably several others who out of anger and frustration turn to rogue behavior and become vandals that we all have to contend with. Perhaps TenPoundHammer needs to read some of the points under Wikipedia:Signs of disruptive editing.Wikibones (talk) 20:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikibones, please take a deep breath and remain calm. Accept that different editors have different philosophies when it comes to editing Wikipedia.  Some are inclusionist and some are deletionist. You should consider the possibility that TPH's nom of the article for AfD was in his/her good faith to keep Wikipedia from getting cluttered with small articles of dubious notability, rather than a vendetta against yourself, George Jones, or country music in general.
 * This nom is about High-Tech Redneck (song) and it's bad form to bring up a nom's past AfD actions as reasoning to keep the article in question. If you have a problem with TPH as an editor, take it to the noticeboard.  Do not cloud up this AfD, thanks. GreyWyvern (talk) 21:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  — J04n(talk page) 22:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom --Caldorwards4 (talk) 22:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete it charted. Nothing else really notable about it. GreyWyvern (talk) 22:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I gather this opinion is intended to reverse or qualify WP:NSONG's provision that "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts... are probably notable", or is it that whatever chart this is on is not significant, or that position 24 out of 60 is too low to consider?    DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Too low to consider (It was 75 spaces at the time). The country charts are very lopsided; anything below #20ish is getting far less airplay than even something at #10. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Do Not Delete. The motive of TenPoundHammer here is and continues to be especially determined to destructively delete a song article that happen to be of a song (an actual single by the artist) that was also a "title cut", being the same title as the album article TenPoundHammer created or contributed to. This focus by TenPoundHammer to redirect hit single song articles to his own album articles in this manner is extremely restrictive of wiki content. His arbitrary judgement of this well-known significant hit single in the career of George Jones as "not noteworthy" is a rediculous and uneducated stance. Every fan of George Jones and country fan in general knows this song as being associated with George Jone's career, especially the come-back portion of George's career marked by the High-Tech Redneck album singles.Wikibones (talk) 13:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep DGG's comment is a red flag, and do I read it right as a highly civil understated slap (?). Deserves some investigation.  Song is mentioned in a large number of music encyclopedias, and seems to been so influential, that a whole Tour was named after it Away down South: a history of Southern identity‎ - Page 226 "Finally, even country music legend George Jones got into the act with his 1993 hit "High- Tech Redneck" and his subsequent "High-Tech Redneck Tour. ..."  55 hits on Gbooks is not bad at all and raises serioius doubts about the nominees confident assertaion: "I have searched but been unable to find anything that would expand this beyond a stub".  Power.corrupts (talk) 16:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep Thank you for your support PC. There is sufficient reason also to make the distinction here between single and album anyway. The album was titled after the hit single. Please take another look. I think my reasons are valid. Thank you very much!Wikibones (talk) 17:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Keep per Mandsford, and absolutely keep per Power corrupts.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It went gold ; it's looked at alternatively as a hit novelty song or as something that George Jones's fans would prefer to forget ; he's been known to open his concerts with it . All I know is that it still gets played on the radio.  My startling vision of the future... fifty years from now, people will hear the lyric "Mayberry meets Star Trek" and wonder what "Mayberry" and "Star Trek" were.   Mandsford (talk) 22:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not enough chart. Cynof  G  avuf 12:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's been pointed out to me that the album of the same title went gold, not the song, and that we have an article about the album -- until now, didn't know, didn't care. Maybe the more obvious thing to do would be to merge the two articles (since High-Tech Redneck is the name of both an album and a song), so that this wasn't a debate about whether the song is notable enough for its own page (I think it's notable enough).  I'd say merge, but then somebody would feel compelled to admonish me with "AfD is not for merges!!!".  Then again, that's from the same school of thought that thinks that there should be three articles called High-Tech Redneck (i.e., the song, the album, and the dab page).  Quietly merge the articles, and I doubt anyone will spin them back apart.  Mandsford (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep. In defense against TPH's back room lobbying to anyone who posts "keep" on here, there very well needs to be a distinction between the single and the album, ESPECIALLY in light of the fact that they are the same title, and especially on such a highly promoted and successful single. Assuming that Wikipedia IS a research tool, and really an encyclopedia, it would seem quite silly that no one can go Wikipedia to research the album without being able to get the details for the successful singles from the album. In the case of TenPoundHammer, he seems more concerned about the ambiguity with his article, which of course wouldn't really be much of an article without all the singles associated with the album. Remember too that there wouldn't be a High-Tech Redeck (album), without the High-Tech Redneck (song). TPH's destructive edit on this issue (AND NUMEROUS OTHERS) continue to be restrictive of Wiki content. At least in this case he has allowed discussion, which has not always been case. Often TPH acts and doesn't ask ANYONE. Such actions are in violation of Ownership of articles. Wikibones (talk) 12:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree that there "needs" to be a separate article for the album and each of the singles on the album, particularly if only one of the album cuts was considered notable in its own right. When only the title cut is notable, of course, someone looking for "High Tech Redneck" would be better off looking at an article that mentioned everything on one page.  We've come a long way since the days when every song on an album, every TV episode or TV character, every college athlete, etc., was "entitled" to an article.  However, this comes down to a keep or delete, and the issue is whether this song is notable enough for an article of its own.  The song is a well-known George Jones staple.  I only hear it on the radio, and I don't buy albums, so the information about which album it was on is trivia in the mp3 age.  Mandsford (talk) 13:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep. Hit singles (song articles) are separate resources, with individual content relative their own unique historical contribution to an artists career. Missing from album articles is the content that is specific to those singles or song articles (eg. songwriter credits, award acheivements, chart numbers, links to albums that also contain the same song, links to the songwriter for the research of other material written by that writer, lyrics of interest, etc). This is what I mean by "restricting wiki content". By merging the song article into an album article, everything I have mentioned above in parenthesis is lost. TPH has asked me "Don't you think one longer article is better than two articles?". These are not two articles about the same thing. One is a single song article. One is an album article. Broader wiki content and a deeper resource for research is being destroyed by merging. It isn't about promoting any elements of the product. It is about providing users of Wikipedia the most detail possible, and the specific details related to a succession of hit singles (usually only 3 or 4) released from a noteworthy album is too valuable to lose by merging.Wikibones (talk) 12:34, 10 November 2009 (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.