Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tahiti Hut


 * 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 delete.  Sandstein  19:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Tahiti Hut

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NSONG. Another article for a non-notable song created by the Roxanne Seeman SPA, and again no obvious redirect target. For one thing, the song has been recorded by two notable artists and therefore falls foul of WP:XY, but in any case there's no compelling case to redirect to either artist – the original version is an instrumental from a non-notable album that doesn't have it's own Wikipedia page, and the version with lyrics was a session outtake that was only included as a bonus track on an album 40 years after its original release. No doubt this article will also now be refbombed by the SPA in an attempt to make the song seem notable. Richard3120 (talk) 12:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 12:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 12:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 12:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete due to a lack of coverage from third-party, reliable sources. I was about to propose a redirect, but I agree with the nominator that there are two valid options so that option is not viable imo. Aoba47 (talk) 02:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - I try hard to avoid accusations of bad faith but something is surely amiss with the creator of this article and information about Roxanne Seeman. Ms. Seeman's contributions to the second version of this song (by Jermaine Jackson) can be mentioned at her article as an example of her works. The same could also be done at the article for the relevant Jermaine Jackson album (if there is one). But there is no convincing evidence that the song merits an article of its own. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 21:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge The song could be merged into the Love Island album page but could not find how to revert the redirect to create an album page. Read for hours on all of this and looked for the redirect, understood it targets the album section.  The album is notable, I've added a citation with the Billboard chart on the top of the Tahiti Hut page showing it was still on the chart for 25 weeks.  Not interested in edit wars - fine to merge it into the Love Island album page but don't get why this album is being called non-notable and redirected with nothing visible.  Love Island album has been, as mentioned, on the Billboard chart after 25 weeks, and includes tracks that have been sampled, such as San Juan Sunset by Lupe Fiasco in "Paris, Tokyo" which I think was Grammy nominated, Whistle Bump was a single on the Billboard Dance Charts, Love Island song had activity. Tahiti Hut information is on this page but could be merged if possible to create Love Island album page.  Thank you for advice on this Rosedelune (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC) Editor blocked as suspected sockpuppet. Richard3120 (talk) 15:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I take your point that the album may be notable, as it charted on the Bilboard Jazz chart, but as an article for the album doesn't exist at the moment, a merge is not a possible option at this stage. An article for the album would have to be created first. Richard3120 (talk) 01:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable enough per nom. Ambrosiawater (talk) 08:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The initiator of this Nomination for Deletion is well aware that the album is notable and conceded it but did not respond to the query for advice on how to revert the redirect of the album page. The tag could have been to merge the song page with the album page but what is happening here is an effort to delete, which is discussed on the previous Nomination for Deletion.  Administrators have reviewed pages for years without incident for years.
 * it would appear in my opinion, an effort going on to redirect and delete pages, rather than merge or tag as a stub. I have elaborated on the previous Nomination to Delete:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tequila_Mockingbird_(song)
 * While this has not escalated into a war of reversions, in my opinion where administrators have previously reviewed pages, and where there is no effort to merge or tag as a stub, there appears to be a stubborn determine to argue and delete (please see the link to Tequila Mockingbird (song) Nomination for Deletion discussions. The persistent goal of deletion, rather than encouraging improving an article and revising guidelines, is creating a situation that encourages people to engage paid editors.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars
 * "Occasionally, even experienced Wikipedians lose their heads and devote every waking moment to edit warring over the most trivial thing, wasting time debating topics of no practical value, or wrestling over questions whose answers hold no practical consequence. This page documents our lamest examples. It isn't comprehensive or authoritative, but it serves as a showcase of situations where people lose sight of the big picture and obsessively expend huge amounts of energy fighting over something that, in the end, isn't really so important." Rosedelune (talk) 14:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I think a guideline should be suggested if not in place, that before an editor Nominates to Delete a page that has been reviewed by an administrator, the administrator should be "pinged" to review that editors' Nomination to Delete - and that editors Nominations to Delete and their rationale and the tone of the commentary should be reviewed and evaluated before creators and community members are dragged into a discussion wasting time better spent on improving an article or creating a new one. Rosedelune (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't know yet how to address you with the proper codes and I don't have the time that you do to learn all of this now - but since you have begun by disparaging the Love Island album as not being notable and my creation of articles - and now have conceded after I cited a Billboard chart showing the album was still on the charts after 25 weeks, it is notable and you could have easily looked that up as you have explained that you spend innumerable amounts of time in UK libraries researching Billboard, Music Week and other publications and charts, and since you did not answer my query as to how to undo the redirect -- and since I am coming to the conclusion that you mean well but are of a rigid and literal mind and interpretation of rules and life and have a special interest with all of this which makes you a specialist in the details which your pursue so zealously - and since I have great admiration for people with knowledge, know-how, and talent, may I suggest that since I cannot for the life of me figure out how to undo the redirect for Love Island album -- that you direct your energies in a positive direction to the creation of the Love Island album page and take the contents of the Tahiti Hut page and merge it there without deleting any of the information. I am suggesting this as a compromise and a request that you consider what would help improve the situation which you are well-aware of with the rules that you are intransigent about following simply because as you say they are the guidelines, you didn't make them and you need to follow them.  This community can propose new rules and you are an expert on what they are, so how about considering what would help to keep articles that have merit though not to the standard that you are following simply because in your mind there is no alternative and I understand that.  There is a new movie coming out "Just Mercy" which happens to take place in Monroeville where Harper Lee, writer of "To Kill a Mockingbird" lived and wrote the book.  It is about the justice system.  I recommend it highly to all who are serving on these jury panels.
 * Here is the tracklist for Eumir Deodato's Love Island (album). Personally I don't agree that the Tahiti Hut article, which was reviewed by an administrator previous to your Nomination to Delete, should be merged here unless you should expand the album page to include information for Whistle Bump, San Juan Sunset and Love Island, but would gladly accept it if it would allay all of this discussion. The disparaging reference to Tahiti Hut as a session outtake, however is incorrect - a session outtake to my understanding would be when the song is recorded multiple takes, one take is chosen, and the others are the outtake of that song's recording session.  To understand when and how that song was recorded and why it did not appear on the album would be a question for Jermaine Jackson to answer or Bobby DeBarge, who is deceased but was the subject of this year's biopic: https://tvone.tv/show/the-bobby-debarge-story/, or the writer of the song might know but that would have to be documented by an interview in a reliable source.  Maybe you could think of a way that Wikipedia could start it's own reliable source publication so that facts could be submitted and verified.  Many thanks.

{{Track listing Rosedelune (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * title1         = Area Code 808
 * writer1        =Deodato, George Parrish, Jr
 * length1        = 6:45
 * title2         = Whistle Bump
 * writer2        =Deodato
 * length2        = 4:32
 * title3         = Tahitti Hut
 * writer3        =Maurice White
 * length3        = 4:27
 * title4         = San Juan Sunset
 * writer4        =
 * length4        = 4:15
 * title5         = Love Island
 * writer5        =Deodato
 * length5        = 6:40
 * title6         = Chariot of the Gods
 * writer6        =Don Juan Mancha, Edwin Starr
 * length6        = 3:09
 * title7         = Pina Colada
 * writer7        =[Deodato]]
 * length7        = 5:55
 * title8         = Take The “A” Train
 * writer8        = Billy Strayhorn
 * length8        = 3:48
 * you have entirely missed the point of this AfD discussion. Perhaps I wasn't very clear, but I did tell you that the album article would need to be created first – this is done by overwriting the redirect which is already in place, and if you want help in doing that, I am willing to guide you. But the point is, why should "Tahiti Hut" redirect to Love Island (album) any more than Reaching for Tomorrow, where it is also featured? The whole reason I opened this discussion is because it is far from obvious that one version is more notable than the other, and therefore there is more than one redirect option. Richard3120 (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Tahiti Hut with lyrics is a derivative work of the underlying composition Tahiti Hut which means the copyright for the lyric version is based on the copyright for the original composition which was recorded by Eumir Deodato on the Love Island album. There are two copyrights:  the copyright for the song and the copyright for the sound recording.  For that reason, the recording by Switch feat. Jermaine Jackson would be attached to the original copyright of the song.  On the other hand, as you point out, the recording by Switch feat. Jermaine Jackson is a bonus track on an expanded edition of Reaching For Tomorrow so it would equally make sense that the song would be part of that album.  If there is a new recording - and by the way now that there is the recent release, press,  activity, uses are likely to occur - so with a new recording then the question is where you put the information for that recording, especially if it does not have chart activity or pass all the hoops that are being deemed necessary for it's own page.  So if, for example, a punk act (I understand you like 70's punk/new wave acts) were to cover the song, then there is the issue of where this information would be added - would it then be redirected or included to the Switch "Reaching For Tomorrow" page?  Originally the intent was to create the Love Island album page but that was not possible because the redirect was not possible to locate and revert, hence having a page for the song which would include the Eumir Deodato version, the Switch feat Jermaine Jackson version made the most sense and afterwards, there was the Yacht Rock web series podcast which includes the Deodato version and the samples of the Deodato record.  So in a case where there are two recordings by notable artists, and the notability of the artists is certainly unquestionable, and there are additional uses, samples, etc. and a there is possibility for a stub to grow, it makes sense in my opinion to create a song page for the song -- and to consider a revision of the notability guidelines to allow for determinations in cases like this so an editor does not elect a Nomination to Delete altogether for lack of knowing what to do Rosedelune (talk) 23:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - Songs: Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs. WP:Notability (music)
 * In this case there has been uses over the decades and a new release so the article can grow beyond a stub. 3. Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups.
 * Songs with notable cover versions are normally covered in one common article about the song and the cover versions. To delete the article because you don’t know where to merge it does not seem a positive decision.Hiroman60 (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC) Editor blocked as suspected sockpuppet. Richard3120 (talk) 15:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You have quoted the notability statement and then ignored it in your next sentence. This song has been in existence for 42 years and still shows no signs of notability – we don't keep articles on the basis that "they might be notable someday". You haven't demonstrated at all that either version of the song is notable, so there is no reason to keep an article about two non-notable versions. Richard3120 (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

{{clear}}
 * 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.