Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Name Is Jonas (2nd 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   keep. (non-admin closure) ceradon ( talk  •  contribs ) 05:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

My Name is Jonas
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm nominating this for a second time, as the previous nomination (back in August) defaulted to keep due to lack of comments. I'm nominating it again as I plan to do a big tidy up of Weezer articles.

I believe this article fails WP:NSONGS, which demands "multiple, non-trivial sources" for articles about songs. This article's sources are:


 * the unofficial Weezer biography (which predictably covers almost every Weezer song, and does not prove this song's notability)
 * the official Weezer site (fails "sources are independent of the artist and label" requirement of WP:NSONGS)
 * two lists of the best Weezer songs (unimpressive, considering the narrow scope of such lists; it wasn't even named the best song in either list)
 * a source reporting that My Chemical Romance played the song with Weezer once (possibly not even worth mentioning in the article, and not grounds for notability)
 * a source reporting that the Thermals covered the song (not grounds for notability)
 * a source reporting that the song is included in a video game (not grounds for notability - I think?)
 * a book by Scott Millner which discusses the song for a paragraph (this is the only source that gives me pause for thought, but we need "multiple, non-trivial" sources)

I think the article should be redirected to Weezer (1994 album), where the subject can be covered sufficiently.

Obviously I could be wrong about all this, and if there is a consensus to keep it, I won't challenge the article again. Popcornduff (talk) 18:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Passes WP:GNG. GNG demands significant independent sources. All of the sources that you said were "not grounds for notability" satisfy WP:GNG. --Mr. Guye (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Really? Is, for example, the report that a Weezer covers band played the song really "significant independent" coverage? Popcornduff (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC) Forget that, I can't actually find the source mentioning the Weezer covers band, so maybe I imagined that or it's been removed. Whoops! Let me pick another example: does the song's appearance on lists of "best Weezer songs" really constitute significant independent coverage, considering the nature of the article's content means a whole bunch of Weezer songs are going to be on it? This is not as impressive, for example, as the song appearing on a list of best guitar solos, or 90s rock songs, or whatever. And what about two bands covering the song in live performance (not releasing studio versions, just performing them at some point)? Do we really care about that? Popcornduff (talk) 00:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: My arguments for keeping this still stands from my comments on these pages: Talk:My Name Is Jonas and Articles for deletion/My Name Is Jonas. The notability for this song is a lot for a non-single. Kokoro20 (talk) 23:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per my comment in the September 2014 AfD at Articles for deletion/My Name Is Jonas.--Milowent • hasspoken 05:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge to Weezer (1994 album). The song lacks significant individual coverage - it is mostly covered in the context of all Weezer songs, the band itself, or its parent album. That demonstrates the notability of Weezer and their 1994 album, but not the song itself. I see no reason why the content here can't be merged to the album article. –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Who says it needs individual significant coverage? WP:NSONGS only says that when it comes to album reviews. Also, WP:GNG says that independent coverage is not needed to satify notability, where it says "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." There's significant coverage for the song from multiple sources outside of album reviews. Kokoro20 (talk) 08:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * NSONG also says, "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article." I wouldn't exactly call what is in the article particularly detailed or significant. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess I'll have to disagree. The article could be made bigger than what is now. Kokoro20 (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge to Weezer (1994 album), fails WP:NSONG. --Bejnar (talk) 12:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I believe that this article meets WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. This song has coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources and appears to be notable. BenLinus  1214 talk 04:49, 30 December 2014 (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.