Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics, Religion and Her (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 to delete. Please take discussion of whether to redirect and/or merge to the appropriate talk pages. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Politics, Religion and Her (song)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Charting songs aren't inherently notable. There is nothing particularly notable about this song; it only got to #28, and no reviews of the album discuss this particular song in depth. I have tried several times to redirect this, but have been contested by the author. Note that the author was similarly defensive of If I Was a Drinkin' Man, another low-charting, unsourced song which was deleted here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:13, 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) 20:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  — J04n(talk page) 22:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom --Caldorwards4 (talk) 22:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete it charted. Nothing else really notable about it. GreyWyvern (talk) 22:51, 5 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 song in the career of Sammy Kershaw as "not noteworthy" is a rediculous and uneducated stance. Every fan of Sammy Kershaw and country fan in general knows this song as being associated with Sammy Kershaw's career.Wikibones (talk) 13:25, 6 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 Politics, Religion and Her (album), without the Politics, Religion and Her (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. His actions are aften in violation of Ownership of articles. Wikibones (talk) 12:21, 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) 12:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Redirect to Politics, Religion and Her, I don't see the any coverage of signifigacne about the song. -- Whpq (talk) 14:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge the very limited extra info into Politics, Religion and Her. No need to keep as redirect Power.corrupts (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to album. May have charted just, but I do not see it being developed beyond a stub, no significant coverage. Also suggest Wikibones turns his fanatical attentions to articles with more potential. Rehevkor ✉  20:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Use of the word "fanatical" by Rehevkor is agregious in nature and grossly inconsistent with spirit and content of this discussion.Wikibones (talk) 12:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Shame. Rehevkor ✉  17:10, 18 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.