Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Jane (Megadeth song) (3rd nomination)


 * 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 So Far, So Good... So What!. Liz Read! Talk! 07:22, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Mary Jane (Megadeth song)
AfDs for this article:


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

Non-notable song that was deleted at AfD some years back (although kept a year later), reverted to a redirect some years later, and recently reverted back to a redirect for the same reason, yet it still exists as a continually recreated article.

After removing the entirely non-RS (such as instagram and twitter, among others), you're left with either database entries, news posts that don't actually reference the song or passing mentions falling far short of WP:SIGCOV. Not seeing any indication of notability here but needs a community consensus due to the continual recreations. Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment - Both Discogs and Setlist.com, cited multiple times in the article, fail WP:USERG as well. Sergecross73   msg me  18:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect back to the album page and lock editing so this stops happening. Clearly not notable, especially with how long it's been around with the opportunity to find good sources which do not appear to exist. QuietHere (talk) 01:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Pinging to speak their opinion,  is removing the AfD template. Removing the AFD template is not acceptable for this. 2600:1700:9BF3:220:C91D:C1F3:FE4A:88A9 (talk) 05:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Stop editing the article while I am. Wait. BoxxyBoy (talk) 05:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If you paid any attention, you would have seen the "in use" tag. I am not done with the page. Wait for me to finish to judge it. You don't eat a cake that's still in the oven. BoxxyBoy (talk) 05:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * First of all, please stop removing the AFD tag too early when the discussion is in progress. If it fails WP:NSONGS, then it redirected to So Far, So Good... So What! and salted from ever recreating it. Let the AFD tag to be remained here, and also Serge says, Discogs is failed WP:USERG and it should not be used as a source. 2600:1700:9BF3:220:C91D:C1F3:FE4A:88A9 (talk) 05:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Stop ADDING the tag early. Wait until the page has been finished. BoxxyBoy (talk) 06:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If you want to make the article then, draftify it, avoid USERG sources, uses sources in the list of sources per the WP:RSMUSIC. Bungle nominated it the article for deletion for repeatedly recreating the article a day ago and tagged for AFD, you need to calm down. 2600:1700:9BF3:220:C91D:C1F3:FE4A:88A9 (talk) 06:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * i was told to either put "in use" or "under construction" while working on a page. you dont even have an account BoxxyBoy (talk) 07:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The "in use" template is only meant to be used for a very short period and the template usage states that it can (and generally should) be removed if no edits have been made for a couple of hours. It isn't an invincibility cloak that stops anyone else from making an edit, nominating etc. Besides, Scope creep made clear their edits in edit summaries and you reverted back to the poor citations without consideration these were sub-standard. You had enough opportunity to demonstrate viability, even before you reverted the redirect a second time. Once an article is nominating for deletion, discussion or however you wish to consider it, the tag remains for the duration of that discussion. Improvements can me made during that time but ultimately the decision will be made on merit and in accordance with notability policy. Bungle (talk • contribs) 07:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, some years ago: a consensus made 15 years ago when there wasn't many sources to be found is one that needs to be re-evaluated. BoxxyBoy (talk) 05:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hence, we are having a fresh discussion because each of the former discussions were considerably far back in time that they can't be relevant today. Bungle (talk • contribs) 07:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * A good chunk of sources in the article are about the song itself. I have removed the remaining unreliable sources (Setlist.FM and Discogs were already taken off). 15 of the 31 sources in the article are specifically and solely about the song, with 8 of them going very in depth. The song is very clearly notable. It was released as a single, charted in two countries, and has fairly significant coverage. BoxxyBoy (talk) 15:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Seeing as we're now having to deal with a WP:REFBOMB situation, perhaps you could bullet point just a handful of these citations which are all of:
 * WP:RELIABLE (so not from blogs or user-generated fan sites etc)
 * WP:SECONDARY (thus not from the band's own website or websites affiliated with them)
 * WP:SIGCOV (more than just a passing mention)
 * As it stands, you're the only editor to express a desire to keep (not surprising), but several have expressed concerns about the article's viability. Bombing the article with significant "references" which don't support all the points I mentioned above just makes me more concerned that credible citations don't exist, or exist in insufficient numbers. Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no WP:REFBOMB situation here. You seem to just be ignorant. (REMOVED) BoxxyBoy (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Please follow WP:NPA - don't call people ignorant. There are some valid points being made here - a lot of these sources don't help the song meet the WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS. But there's not nothing here either.
 * To count towards meeting the GNG, the sources must be "third party" - meaning not from the band/label themselves. So that throws out everything sourced to social media or megadeth.com - which is a fair amount. And unless something significant is said in the album reviews - passing mentions from reviews aren't enough to avoid a merge/redirect back to the album article.
 * That said, once you trim away all of that, there's still a couple sources left. The Ultimate Guitar article is from a RS and is in good detail. Blabbermouth is listed at WP:RSMUSIC as well. Loudersound is a reliable source, but doesn't even mention the song by name, so that doesn't help. Some of these "sleaze rock" or "Metal Jacket Magazine"...I've never heard of. And there's no consensus on them at WP:RSMUSIC. Probably doesn't bode well for reliability, but isn't an auto-fail. Its up to you to explain why they would be reliable and significant in the Wikipedia-sense. 3
 * As is, you've basically got a Ultimate Guitar and Blabbermouth source in your favor. 2 is the absolutely bare minimum for meeting the GNG, but often a hard sell to convince people it shouldn't be merged/redirected... Sergecross73   msg me  17:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "(P)assing mentions from reviews aren't enough to avoid a merge/redirect back to the album article." Those aren't there to avoid it being redirceted. That's just added information, which is sometimes a thing I include when writing articles, like in A Little Piece of Heaven (song). I would have put it there if it was marked for deletion or not. BoxxyBoy (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * And that's fine. But this isn't some sort of peer review of general content, it's a deletion discussion where we try to determine whether or not a subject should retain its article. Passing mentions don't factor into that. Sergecross73   msg me  16:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * When I am trying to help you to convey what is necessary in a discussion like this, i'd appreciate not being inferred as "ignorant". Besides, you have now just refbombed this afd - that is not what I advised. I suggested bullet points of just a handful (and it only needs a handful) that meet all of the criteria I mentioned above. A cursory look at just the first few indicate to me that they do not meet the criteria. Secondary references also need to be WP:INDEPENDENT of the subject, so blogs or posts by members or ex-members don't count towards notability either, nor do almost entire interviews with individuals close to the subject. Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "nor do almost entire interviews with individuals close to the subject". The articles, like the Q&A's, are about the meaning of the song. Is that not okay to use? BoxxyBoy (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * They're okay to use for adding content to the article, per WP:PRIMARY, but they're not good for arguing that a subject is notable. Sergecross73   msg me  18:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I see. Well there are at least 3 articles that aren't strictly interviews. And it charted in two countries. What would you do to improve the page? I'd rather it didn't get redirected. BoxxyBoy (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * The song is clearly notable. Can we close this AFD, please? BoxxyBoy (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * My interpretation so far is that you're the only one wanting this to be an article, while several support a redirect. There needs to be more firmer expressions though, so I can understand Liz's relist. Bungle (talk • contribs) 16:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * How was that your take away from the discussion above? Are you actually reading and understanding the policies and guidelines you're being informed of above? Sergecross73   msg me  16:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes I am. I removed unreliable sources and kept only the important things. The song has WP:SIGCOV, and has charted in two countries.BoxxyBoy (talk) 18:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Redirect/Merge - there's just very little of substance to be said, part of which being because it gets very little dedicated independent coverage on its own. Better covered in the context of its respective album, like so much of its coverage is. Sergecross73   msg me  16:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to So Far, So Good... So What!. Fails WP:NSONG per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 03:01, 24 December 2022 (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.