Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rich Girl


 * 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 of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 10:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Rich Girl
Delete: Without unnecessarily dismissing the positive points of including pop-songs, may I draw your attention to the initial question of longevity for this article, as per the wiki guidelines for inclusion? Do you honestly believe that in the year 2105 that a Wikipaedia user is going to type in the words “rich girl” expecting to find this ephemeral, predominantly MTV-specific pop song?

Has it made such an impact on the collective imagination e.g. “Happy Birthday”, “New York, New York”, that our grandchildren’s grandchildren will be singing it?

Due to the very nature of mass marketing, articles about commercial pop songs are very easy to verify. Does this by itself validate their inclusion in this project?

This sort of grass roots advertising is often effectively undetectable, what with zombie e-teamers running all over the web. We really should be on the look out for it beofre the project becomes a giant press release. --HasBeen 11:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep The points the nominator bring up are not listed under the policy WP:DP. However, this article badly needs cleaning up. It makes many assertions that are not verifiable (WP:V). It does not cite its sources (WP:CITE). Some problematic passages are:


 * The song has caused a highly split reaction among listeners, as although it is very popular, it is either hugely loved or hugely disliked.

Not only is this sentence awkward and needs a copy edit, it is not backed up by any references. If there was such a strong split in public opinion about this song, it should be verifiable in a reputable published source. I would expect more than just a link to an MTV News article on the web.


 * Following the failure of her previous single, "What You Waiting For?", critics had dismissed Stefani's album as a failed solo vanity project...

What critics say this? The article doesn't say. Again, this should be verifiable by a reputable music industry published source.

The editors of this article want to push for it to be a WP:FA. It has a long way to go before it gets there. However, for the time being, I feel the article should be kept. It is notable, it meets at least one of the criteria of the proposed policy Importance, was popular in its time, and is an interpretation of another culturally relevant song. Who are we to say what will be researched in 100 years time? Rock 'n' Roll of the 1950s was once dismissed as disposable. Now there are college courses on the subject. --malber 13:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. &mdash;Crypticbot (operator) 15:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Hit record by notable artist. Article needs referencing but looks solid otherwise. Capitalistroadster 16:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Have provided references and performed cleanup work. Capitalistroadster 18:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies so far. I don't want to seem pushy, but I don't think my question is being addressed: who will type the words "rich girl" into our search engine expecting to find this thinly-veiled advert for a pop-song, even next year, let alone in 2105?

I'm not doubting that the words "gwen stefanni" will be a popular choice for many browsers, and should details of her songs go there?

This is a question of associating words of the English language with ephemeral pop ditties that frankly do not deserve such attention. Here in the UK, this pop-star is minor, and certainly not worthy of note any more than the long line of Madonna-clones that churn out from over the Atlantic.

I find it highly suspicious that such a quick response was made to my request for deletion, further confirming my suspicions that Wiki is being used by mass-marketers to flog goods.

That the Wiki policy seems to revolve primarily around verification of information makes this advertising easier.

Being easy to validate does not make a thing worthy of attention. Should we have a page "It rained in Newcastle on xx/xx/xxxx" every time it rains in Newcastle?(Ps it always rains in Newcastle...)--HasBeen 09:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. Encyclopedic, no grounds for deletion. --Andylkl [ talk! 15:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The user who proposed this deletion has also placed a comment on the talk page at Hollaback Girl, leading me to believe that numerous sockpuppets are being materialised to help remove modern music articles. If other Stefani singles should not be kept, the songs written by The Beatles should not be kept. It is as simple as one, two, three. &mdash;Hollow Wilerding 21:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'd like to note that I am convinced that User:Death Thoreau is a sockpuppet, judging by the edits listed at his/her contributions. This also appears to be the case with the nominator, as all of their edits are based on the longevity of Stefani's music-singles articles. Evidence. &mdash;Hollow Wilerding 21:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Disambiguate - A similarly-named recording by Hall and Oates is itself a noteworthy recording on several fronts; for example sales, #1 record on the singles chart of Billboard magazine, and the first major hit by Hall and Oates (which Billboard has declared to be the "#1 duo in the rock era"). If Gwen Stefani's "Rich Girl" deserves an article, so does Hall and Oates'. B.Wind 23:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course keep it. This battle has been fought too many times (the argument over single inclusion) and it has been very decisively determined that the community favors these articles. Unless some evidence arises that the community is moving back towards deletionism on this issue (the general tendency seems to be strongly towards inclusionism), I think nominations like this should simply be removed. Maybe we can still have the vote if a stubborn deletionist insists, but it's absurd to have that template stuck at the top of the article. We are trying to do serious work here. Everyking 06:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I bolded your "keep" so that it's easier to locate, Everyking. &mdash;Hollow Wilerding 14:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I am no sock puppet, although the crushing, gang-related mentality of certain rabid Gwen Stefanni fans really does indicate that this project has been infiltrated by e-teamers at the very least, and professional marketing people at worst.

My reasons for pursuing this question was that on the day that Gwen got her free commercial on the front page of Wiki, an article that I was adding to was deleted on very flimsy grounds, in fact the same flimsy grounds that you e-teamers are knocking the system with here and now.

It seems there is one rule for major record labels and quite another (terminal) one for local press.

Two questions: (1) why don't any of "you" address my original question directly, i.e. is it correct to assign words of the English Language to minor historical events in an encyclopaedia, especially pop songs that don't even get much of a UK release? (2) why is this information not included in the pop-stars bio, where it clearly belongs; why must it have its own entry? --HasBeen 09:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Your contributions convince me that you are a sockpuppet. Let's make something clear: if the Beatles are worthy enough of possessing articles for their songs, then so is Gwen Stefani. The quantity of the song's performance, or the quantity of the musical arist's presence and popularity is irrelevant. In this case, Gwen Stefani will never be as popular as the Beatles were &mdash; however that's quantity and overlooks the quality of the actual song inspiration, composition, chart performance, etc. If Stefani should not be allowed to have articles on her single releases, then all of the Beatles singles are going to be removed. &mdash;Hollow Wilerding 21:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

You see, you agree with me! I think Gwen, The Beatles and even Clockface should all be included in this project, I just don't see why we have to endure a free commercial masquerading as a new article every time a new single gets released. '''The place for this article's content is in the bio. That's where people are going to want to find this information.''' If I were looking for rare Gwen Steffani b-sides, I'd type in her name, not guess at a half-remembered song title. Please explain to me why including this information in her bio is unacceptable. Move information to bio, then Delete --HasBeen 10:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's guideline on notability of songs usually draws the line at singles. B-sides would most likely be merged into the single or album if it were on AfD. Singles released by a notable musician are acceptable in Wikipedia. Simple as that. --Andylkl [ talk! 13:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, but this particular single drew a blank in the UK, as does this pop-star. I also imagine this is the case in the rest of Europe, Africa, Asia, China etc, etc... Again, please supply one good reason as to why this information should not be copied to her bio; that's where people are going to look for this sort of thing. By all means let's do the same with the Beatles if it makes you feel less "victimised". What this stand-alone article represents is an abuse of the Wiki system to advertise products, and that cannot be a good thing. Delete --HasBeen 11:53, 14 December 2005 (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.