Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jealousy (Queen 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   redirect to Jazz (Queen album). Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Jealousy_(Queen_song)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Doesn't list any reason of why it's notable as an individual song, thus failing WP:NSONGS. No sources provided. Merge, maintance and prod tags have been removed with no explanation. Attempts to redirect to Jazz_(Queen album) have been reverted. Enric Naval (talk) 19:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  —Enric Naval (talk) 19:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's a song by Queen. Derp. MtD (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NSONGS and provide sources that allow to write a detailed article. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No. I don't want to read WP:NSONGS or any other dreary lifeforce sapping guideline. It is a Queen song and it should have an article. How can that not be obvious? MtD (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not obvious in wikipedia.... --Enric Naval (talk) 12:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has policies and guidelines which govern what subjects can and can't be included. I'll defend to the death your right to hold fanboy attitudes, but surely what must be obvious to you is that they have no place in such discussions.  Add me to the Merge and redirect crew.   Ravenswing  18:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's policies can go and lick the pavement. MtD (talk) 11:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect with the parent album. The answer to the problem of a redirect being reverted is to protect the redirect, not to delete the article. This article is likely a permastub, but redirects are encouraged in the guidelines. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 19:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. I double-checked to make sure, but WP:NSONG says, "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article." That does not mean that redirects are encouraged. The song is not notable, there is no verifiable content worth merging--deletion is a solution. However, the page views per month number in the hundreds, up to 1000 (I checked only a few months), which might suggest it's a possible search term (obviously I can't tell if those visitors come from Jazz (Queen album)). As DGG used to say, I believe, redirects are cheap. Drmies (talk) 05:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. My concern over redirecting this is that it will break the chain of chronology in the single infoboxes (i.e. the links from the infoboxes in Don't Stop Me Now and Mustpha won't make sense). There again, it does seem very unusual the a Queen single at this point in their career should fail enter the charts at all. Does anyone know what's going on here? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sadly, it is going to break the chronology chain, the consecutive listing of complete singles. Unfortunately, there's a lot of heartless editors out there who just don't care. What a pity. Best, --Discographer (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nor should we, of course; "making the navboxes look pretty" forms no part of inclusion criteria.  Ravenswing  02:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * However, this isn't about making Navboxes look pretty, it's about making Wikipedia easy for users to navigate. That may not be Wikipedia policy in its own right, but it is part of common sense which falls under WP:IAR, which is policy. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In which case the links ought to be designed to do so, or else the links should be eliminated. I've heard worse rationales to keep an otherwise non-notable article than ease of navigation, but very few.   Ravenswing  09:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly, before you accuse someone of having a bad rationale to keep, perhaps the word "comment" might have given you a clue. But that aside, enforcement of the notability criteria has to be weighed up against whether the links in the other articles make sense. It is standard practice for articles on singles to link to the previous single and next single in the infobox, and both of the solutions you propose have problems. I am happy to suggest better ways of managing the links if you want to delete this, but I won't waste my time if you're going to dismiss it as a rationale for keeping a non-notable article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to album article. This is a minor Queen song (not featured on any of their Greatest Hits albums, AFAIK). The article is unsourced, and its information is already contained in the album article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:21, 16 November 2010 (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.