Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jealous Guy

From VfD:

After deleting the copyrighted lyrics, there's nothing there and not much potential for exapnsion. RickK 19:36, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Agree. I don't see how this could possibly serve as a valid article with encyclopedic content. My vote: Delete Skyler 19:57, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep. A bit obscure perhaps, but known to many millions of people. It's a good stub, and could be expanded in many ways. It could include, for example, which John Lennon album it originally appeared on, and also the details of the two covers already described. A classic Wikipedia is not paper case IMO. Andrewa 21:24, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I can see it as having some potential benefit as a section of an article related to the particular John Lennon album, but not as a separate article unto itself. I can see the Wikipedia is not paper argument, but I am more concerned with the need for it to meet criteria of encyclopedic content, which unless it has some social significance behind it (i.e. caused a riot, stopped a war, was written during or about a significant piece of history, etc.) I don't see how it could meet the aforementioned criteria. Though it wouldn't be the first time I've been on the wrong side of an argument, I still vote Delete. Skyler 22:03, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * Well...It's supposed to be autobiographical, about Lennon's relationship with Yoko. And it was Roxy Music's only no 1 and the only Lennon tribute record that made no 1.  Maybe those things are of interest....? On balance, I think I'd keep it.  Deb 22:26, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep If an analysis of the lyrics and a background to the song are added, this article can imho be a very valuable contribution to wikipedia Aecis 22:39, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Where would you draw the line? If I created an article for each Pearl Jam, Eminem, Aerosmith, Snoop Dogg, or Britney Spears (all of whom have had number 1 hits on some list; three of them on Billboard) song and gave my personal analysis (btw, wouldn't analysis conflict with NPOV?) and background of each of these songs, would they be considered appropriate encyclopedic content? Pearl Jam's Black, Alive, and Jeremy told the story of a very troubled boy in three parts, which I think is noteworthy, but more appropriate for a fan site than an encyclopedia. It's disheartening that I am the only one on the side of this argument, but I think it is an important enough issue for Wikipedians to address with vigour. Skyler 00:04, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * In my view, those would be considered appropriate encyclopedic content, yes. There are also several articles about paintings (for instance one about Munch's The Scream). Should they be deleted as well? Songs are (or ought to be) art expressions, and an analysis of the expression deserves to be in an encyclopedia. Aecis 09:54, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep Dmn 00:13, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep it is an historic song, in my opinion it is worth of an article, hence Lennon's page linked to it. SimonMayer 00:58, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Yikes. Ok, do I think it can be more than a stub and therefore escape a VfD citerion?  Yes.  However, it needs a move to Jealous Guy (song) just for the sake of clarity and to prevent future disambigs (I know that Andrewa disagrees with me on these topics, but, well, I'm consistent).  We need a discussion of what the song is about, the chart positions of the various cover versions, etc.  For Bryan Ferry, the song was a hit, while for Lenon not so much.  Anyway, all of us voting keep (including me) can add a single straw to the pile.  By the end of voting, this might be so good an article as to remove all doubt.  Very weak Keep if we do our bit to help out.  In general, I'm with Skyler, as these things very rarely make it, and I'll change to delete if we don't succeed in a couple of days.  Geogre 01:01, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * < GomerPyle> Shame, shame, shame!  Nobody helped it.  Well, I've done some.  I sympathize with Skyler's point of view and normally hold it.  Only really monumental songs and chapters and things deserve to break out.  I thought this was one.  I maintain my keep. Geogre 18:44, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: Moving this article to Jealous Guy (song) seems pointless unless there is something more or equally notable to claim the title, either instead of Jealous Guy (disambiguation) or in its own right. It doesn't do a great deal of harm, but setting up extra pages when there's nothing to disambiguate is a waste of time. It's no harder to move the article when (and if) we do find something to disambiguate. No change of vote. Andrewa 03:11, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, I knew you'd disagree. I'm a preventionist in cases of single artworks like songs or movies, and it's just an opinion.  That said, the "waste of time" argument works both ways.  There is no additional functionality to not having the "(song)," but after things link to the unclarified title, those pages will have to moved with the article once some new animated show with the title becomes all the rage or some old anime is discovered with the title.  It's a minor point, of course, and doesn't affect our votes. Geogre 04:16, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * How sad a state of affairs it is when Wikipedia becomes overly idealistic. This article contains atleast some useful content, whether it is a great sized article or not, what does it matter? This page contains information that may be important to some people. Even the most primitive stub is better than no article at all. SimonMayer 02:43, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not at all concerned with the size. If someone wrote two sentences vaguely defining the Great Wall of China (just an example) and left it as a stub, I would have no problem. Even if it were a stub for an article which has the potential to be expanded into encyclopedic content by others and all it said was "Please expand." I would not complain. It's not the length, it's the topic involved and I don't think that is idealistic. I think it very practical thinking if we want Wikipedia to remain credible as a source of knowledge. If we create entries for any song (or book, or movie, etc.) that a group of people find to be historic than the fansite information will come to outweigh the serious encyclopedic content. Skyler 04:32, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * I still don't know where you draw the line. Shall we fill Wikipedia with stubs for the names of every song ever written by a successful artist and wait for someone who feels they are historic songs to come along and fill in as to why we should take notice? Show me a reason why this song constitutes encyclopedic content outside of the fact that John Lennon wrote it and a couple bands covered it and I will gladly reconsider. Until then I'm with Andrewa on one thing: no change of vote here, either. Skyler 04:32, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * By the way, I don't mean to be argumentative (well, not annoying, anyway), but I do stand by my convictions and my goal is to help Wikipedia continue to be a credible source of encyclopedic content. Sorry if that bothers anyone. Skyler 04:32, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wikipedia is not paper means that we shouldn't delete it because we're afraid of running out of space.  However, as others have mentioned, there's the question of whether this article is, or is likely to become, encyclopaedic.  -- WOT 05:41, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to appropriate article (John Lennon, for example)  &mdash; Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 15:07, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I can go along with this solution. Skyler 19:51, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. If a summary of one of the most famous John Lennon songs cannot be kept, what can. I suggest if you delete this, then look at much of this Encyclopedia. In particular, Pink Floyd songs, which are in some cases, not NPOV and some factually wrong (Shine On You Crazy Diamond). paidforit, yesterday
 * For the record, I don't think any of those should be kept either. Skyler 19:51, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * May I suggest then that if you want to tidy some of these pages up then you have a large task ahead of you. paidforit, today
 * Keep It's a very popular song by arguably the greatest singer-songwriter the world has ever known. It just neefds expanding on. Someone was going on about how people would nort be so acceptant if someone made an article about Pearl Jam, Eminem, Aerosmith, Snoop Dogg, or Britney Spears. Firstly, I would not have any problem with artcles about any of these acts most significant numbers, as would never be so ignorant as to rule out the potential value of such an article to someone else. Secondly unpecidentedly successful though the majority of these acts are, they do not have universal significance on the samew level as Lennon.

--Crestville 18:25, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't see much difference between Lennon's and Eminem's agendas. Everyone needs a hobby, but misogyny isn't one of mine. Fire Star 14:41, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * You think Lennon was a misogynist? This strays from the point of this page, but if you would care to continue the dicussion on my talk page, I'd be glad to introduce you to a little lady named Yoko. Also, wether you think they have similar agenda's or not (I suppose 'Purple Pills' could be construed as being in the same vein as 'Strawberry fields' or 'Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds' - albeit a somewhat tedious link) my point was that Lennon's influence, recognition and significance as leader to a generation was far greater than that of the others named and therefore his work perhaps deserves greater exploration. You only need to look at the 100 Greatest Britons list to see his phenomoinal popularity and status, at least in the eyes of we brits.--Crestville 18:52, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I support recognizing his influence and popularity as a person. I even support recognizing his works (perhaps in a page entitled "Songs by John Lennon" with a list and brief statement about each notable song). I never personally liked Lennon's songs or philosophy, but that does not make them any less note-worthy. What I don't support is having a separate entry for every song people find influential. If we start doing that with every popular artist, we will have more fan-based material, than substantive encyclopedic content. That is my whole point of voting to delete and I stand by it even though this is a lost cause. Skyler 22:53, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * If the content is encyclopedic and decent, I think analyses of songs belong on Wikipedia. And which songs belong on Wikipedia and which don't is not for us to decide (although I do have an opinion on many pop songs, and it's not a positive one) Aecis 17:59, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * In principle, I don't think every song that has ever been written should have a separate encyclopedia entry, but if something more than "This is one of John Lennon's most famous songs" can be added to the entry, I'd vote to keep, or at least preserve as a section in whatever entry exists for the Imagine album (I see that there is only part of one sentence about the song at that entry right now). If not, delete. I'd be glad to find more info and expand it if it gets the votes to remain. (I would agree that it would probably need a Jealous Guy (song) dab though.) ffirehorse 21:48, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I find Skyler's argument convincing. Fire Star 16:38, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Although I'm sort of swayed by Skyler idea of a John Lennon songs page, I'll personally volenteer to help ffirehorse expand on this page if it is spared. I think there is room for expantion-for example, it closely links with Lennon's 'lost weekend', which was actually a pivotal year in his life that he spent in Las Vegas. There is other stuff similar to this (I think George Harrison played on it which is significant to his 0place in the whole Lennon/McCartney row. I'm sure you will agree stuff like this is more than mere fan based material as, being a Lennon spong, it is bound to have a wealth of significance to his lifew and his contemporary world which is of encyclopedaic value.--Crestville 17:53, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * If you can edit this entry to include historic information about Lennon that is related exclusively (or mostly) to this song, I will reverse my vote. Geogre has expanded the page, but it is still an article about a single song and no matter how notable, I still don't think this constitutes encyclopedic content in its own right. If you can expand it into something encyclopedic, I would be very receptive. Skyler 23:56, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Crestville, are you game? I am. ffirehorse 01:37, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I'll give it a shot mate.--Crestville 22:44, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Right, i've done a bit on the lost weekend - a pivotal point in his life which wasn't mentioneed on the John Lennon article. i think it's imortant and significant to the importance of the song as a commentry on Johns life, which is, essentially, what it is.--Crestville 23:29, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Though I still think it is setting a bad precedent for a wave of song title stubs and believe it is still largely fan-based, I am sufficiently impressed with Crestville's expansion. I still stand by all my previous statements made in this argument, but with regard to this particular song, I think it would be a shame to delete. It still needs some good work, but the content is there. I withdraw my previous vote to delete and change my vote to keep and move to cleanup page. Well done. Skyler 01:28, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * I would agree with Skyler's observations. Great job, Crestville. I vote to keep. ffirehorse 02:50, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion