Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tequila Mockingbird (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 delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:00, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Tequila Mockingbird (song)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NSONG. Article creator seems intent on creating articles for every single song co-written by Roxanne Seeman, and I strongly suspect a COI, but that's irrelevant here. I've redirected a couple of the creator's other articles, but this one is more complicated as (a) it's been recorded by three notable artists, (b) the song is the title track of the parent album and therefore has the same name, so a redirect becomes pointless. I know some editors will say "it's been covered by three notable artists, that must count for something", but there is literally no reliable in-depth coverage of the song itself to write an article about it – if you read the article all it says in long-winded terms is "it was recorded by one artist and later covered by two others", and the AllMusic and Billboard sources simply point to albums where the song is merely included in the track listings, without any discussion of the song itself. Richard3120 (talk) 23:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 23:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 23:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Update: since being notified of this AfD, the article creator has been busy adding more passing mentions from non-reliable sources, YouTube links, and unsourced verbiage, but there is still not a single source that actually talks about the song at all apart from mentioning that it exists. Richard3120 (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails the WP:GNG, and WP:BOMBARD won’t change that. There’s just no reason this needs to be spun out into its own article. Don’t be fooled by the reception section, it’s either mundane passing comments or massive direct quotes that appear to be there mostly to bulk up its size, as they are far too long and meander from discussing the song itself. Sergecross73   msg me  10:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As Sergecross73 has noted, the article creator has spent most of the last 14 hours online (don't they ever sleep??) adding a huge amount of refspam to pad out the article and make it appear notable. The editor has seen fit to mention that the song was named by the record label no fewer than four times – even stating it once wouldn't make the song notable, as notability doesn't depend on who came up with the song's title. A couple of the sources in the "critical reception" section are now reliable ones, but they either mention the song in passing within the context of an album review, or as part of a live show, with a one-line description of how the band members played. There are now over 40 references, but still none of them say anything more than "it appeared on an album" or "it was played at a gig". Richard3120 (talk) 14:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Keep The page has been improved per the criticism, which does not appear altogether in the spirit of good faith. In the time spent reading more deeply into your wikipedia guidelines, I read in a wikipedia essay deletion is not a goal. Improving an article is. The writer was not trying to pad anything, just not into cutting and trimming a journalists' review to a line or two for the context of wikipedia but that's done hopefully to your satisfaction. For your information, in fact, allmusic.com is rife with errors and omissions. Any professional musician, engineer, etc has errors and omissions in allmusic.com and has found no way to get them corrected - even with a request. If you really want a reliable source for whom the song writers of a song are, you could look it up at copyright.gov, ascap.com, bmi.com, sesac, and there's a fourth US PRO, and then there are the foreign PROs - Performing Rights Organization - but even these have errors. In the case of Tequila Mockingbird, though you may not find it a reliable source, the images online of the Ramsey Lewis 7" 45 single should have the songwriter listed: Larry Dunn.  Roxanne Seeman wrote lyrics for the song but is NOT the writer of any instrumental version, although Roxanne Seeman is listed at allmusic.com as a writer of the Ramsey Lewis recordings of "Tequila Mockingbird".  The problem is because the instrumental version and the lyric version have the same title, whomever is taking down the information at allmusic.com is not taking it from the source. The problem with this is that when the registrations have errors, royalties are not paid out correctly - and if you would like to be informed further on this, then I would encourage you read about the current passing of the Music Modernization Act, which requires an MLC Board to get all registrations in order.  I divurge here with this, but it relates to Wikipedia and how information is being vetted. So please understand that if something was repeated, it really had more to do with the writing needing to be revised than any attempt to pad or push or make something appear to be something it is not. In one of those wikipedia essays there was a point made about information going back to decades where it is simply hard to locate online - hence you go to the library to get Music Week but even if it's possible to come up with an old chart or article clipping from Billboard, Record World or Cashbox or Radio & Records or Music Week, how do you post it to make it a reliable source? Re "notability", somewhere it is written that inclusion on a compilation or significant compilation, counts towards notability. What the measure of this is, and anything, is up to varying opinions of editors in this discussion and there are only three, all of whom have been in this together for awhile and coincidentally jumped on the page as soon as it was nominated for deletion. It is impressive to read the research done at UK libraries reading back issues of Music Week. If there were a library that had back issues of Radio & Records or one of the Radio Station Trades, then it could satisfy the proof of jazz radio airplay. The fact that The Roots played "Tequila Mockingbird" on Jimmy Fallon as a nod to Jeff Daniels walking to his guest seat on The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon where he will be speaking about his role as Atticus Finch in "To Kill A Mocking - all of this is for the audience of the show which is a US National Broadcast network show - due to the familiarity with the song and the humor in the name "Tequila Mockingbird" and "To Kill A Mockingbird". Maybe it's an inside joke to fans of Ramsey Lewis and the song, but every journalist writes about it and The Roots and Jimmy Fallon chose to play the song because of the song title as it is an idiosyncratic part of the song. So that has been explained and cited with a reliable source.  Furthermore, this is a song that is relevant over forty years - and somewhere in one of those wikipedia essays, that alone could count for notability - not just for something. As has been commented by the initiator of the nomination to delete, something to the effect that there are three notable versions of the song so that must count for something, then it would seem if it were wanting, it could have been tagged as a stub or asked for more inline citations, or had one of the tags that says something like it is too wordy in the Critical reception area. see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Alternatives_to_deletion
 * Delete per Sergecross73 and the nominator's statement. Aoba47 (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, it would be in the interest of Wikipedia, should the editor wish to delete the page without it being perceived as overzealous, the information that is on the page being redirected would have at least been best to merged into the article it is being redirected to, instead of just getting rid of it, which appears to be something in the order of "blanking" though that may not be the exact terminology, all of the information is gone.
 * The notability of the artists who have recorded the song and the musicians that have played on it and the writers who have written the music and the words, is such that the tone of the comments could appear offensive. It was never the intention to "BOMBARD" OR REFSPAM or whatever wikipedia codes are used to refer to this, but in terms of this entry it was in an attempt to satisfy the extraordinarily high standards being asked to be met, sort of like asking a dog to jump higher to get the bone.  Wikipedia is supposed to be a community but the issue is that even if there are over 1,000 administrators - and administrators are reviewing the pages created without incident until now - it looks like three are voting to delete without having said a single word about the revision of the page.  Instead, a nomination to delete another song page came up and with the comment that the song was on an album, Love Island (Eumir Deodato) that not notable and does not have a wikipedia page of it's own.  The problem with that is that that album was on the Billboard chart for over 25 weeks, and had a hit single charting on the Dance Chart, and other songs that were sampled, had covers, and other activity.  Besides that, the album page was redirected to the artist page so if ever an editor wanted to create an album page for the Love Island album that Tahiti Hut is on, unless they were highly advanced with wikipedia, they would not know how to revert the redirect which additionally is targeted to a section. It might even be that the redirect is hidden or the page is protected.  Why the editor who did not check this out before making the disparaging comment is worth asking as again, the idea is to encourage contribution, not for deletion.  The comment about article creator writing about every song Roxanne Seeman has written is such that it negates the dozens of songs in television alone listed on imdb and hundreds of songs in the ascap database. Professional writers write hundreds of song in the course of their careers.  It is a wholesale effort to create an editor war or whatever it is that is done, rather than a peaceful atmosphere encouraging contribution. That lead to reading about other songs and album pages the same editor nominating deletion for this song has done on others and the replies of the innocent editor who wishes to include an album page and is less wikipedia-guideline savvy and is suddenly confronted by a nomination for a deletion -- which again is all up to a discussion which most likely will be three or more to one or maybe two if someone happens to come along fast enough. It's all very troubling and deserves a piece on 60 Minutes:  Understandable that Wikipedia has concerns on businesses, politicians, organizations, Church of Scientology, but deleting song pages of note recorded by artists of notability, written by writers of notability, with more than one recording of same and additional activity including US National Network Television live performance of the song by a notable band in connection with a notable actor and Broadway show (maybe a person who is based in the UK and Colombia is not familiar with the reference but it does not make it less notable), and in the case of the second song Nominated for Deletion being used in a podcast from a web series created by a critic of allmusic.com whom Wikipedia relies on for sourcing, written in good faith?  That comment about 14 hours and when does this person sleep?...that's right, by appearances it could appear that wikipedia has gang leadership and cyber bullies that could cause anyone to lose sleep.Rosedelune (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosedelune (talk • contribs)  Blocked Sock. Britishfinance (talk) 09:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The point is that you have added 51 references to date on this article, and not a single one of them is anything more than a passing mention or demonstrates any notability per WP:NSONG. The comment about "Tahiti Hut" is irrelevant in the context of this AfD but there would be no problem for a Wikipedia editor to create an article for the Love island album, so I don't know why you are worrying about editors being unable to do so. And you seriously think Wikipedia's deletion procedure is worthy of a 60 Minutes investigation? By the way, i have no connection whatsoever with the other two editors in this AfD – I've never met them or spoken to them, either in real life or on Wikipedia, and I never solicited them or anyone else to make a statement here. Richard3120 (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge the verified facts to Tequila Mockingbird (album article) -- Allow me to offer a compromise. I have been following this bizarre discussion and must conclude that everyone has made valid points, though Rosedelune could have done it with 95% fewer words and without the accusations of bad faith. Everyone here is a volunteer and consensus is one of the basic philosophies of Wikipedia. What matters is whether this song is notable enough for its own article, and I must conclude that it is not, because it does not have enough specific and in-depth coverage in its own right, beyond passing mentions in works that are actually about the albums on which it appears or events at which it was played. The song certainly has a place in jazz history, but Rosedelune has not made a convincing argument on why that history must be in a separate article as opposed to saying it within the album article, where it is entirely valid to say something like "The title track was remade with new lyrics by Roxanne Seeman etc. etc." Rosedelune, if you would like to respond please do so in a reasonable number of words and consider paragraph breaks too. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 21:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm quite happy with that suggestion, although there are very few "verified facts" to be merged, once you go through the article – I think probably just how the song/album was named, and who has covered it. Richard3120 (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that there are a few verified facts. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 22:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Keep - I just came across this and couldn’t believe it – I’ve edited pages using my IP address not a user id and wanted to respond to this but because I have never done this before and don’t want to do it without a user id, I created one. I’m interested in learning more because I’ve done edits that were deleted or changed and did not know what to do about it.


 * I looked up notability for song and found this:


 * “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.”


 * Ramsey Lewis recorded it at least 3 times, Dee Dee Bridgewater recorded it, multiple compilations including the song, and a live televised version recorded by The Roots on The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon. Detailed Wikipedia page for The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon – the viewership is millions worldwide.  Are you saying if there isn’t press about it, it didn’t happen?  Or The Roots on Jimmy Fallon doesn’t count?  The Ramsey Lewis and Dee Dee Bridgewater recordings and compilations don’t count? Hiroman60 (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC) Blocked Sock. Britishfinance (talk) 09:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * No, we're saying there needs to be reliable press discussing the song in detail. The notability argument you looked up says the song may be notable if it has been released by several notable artists. But if there aren't any sources discussing those recordings in detail beyond their existence, then it is difficult to justify an individual article. Tunefind is not a reliable source, and there aren't any reliable sources that state that the song was performed on the Jimmy Fallon show. That the show is famous and watched by millions has no relevance to the notability of this article if they never mentioned the song. Richard3120 (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * the song is listed at imdb.com on the Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon page and the Larry Dunn page. Imdb has controlled editorial oversight.  The Youtube Video is an external link. The song was a 7" single released in 1977.  Your rigidity is a matter of concern as Wikipedia is creating an industry standard by your insistence on sticking to guidelines which obviously, at this point, should be subject to review and revision. It seems from what I've read, Wikipedia has had deep issues over politicians and their staff making edits, Church of Scientology, businesses. You are making judgement calls on legacies of musicians, artists, and their intellectual property and sometimes this cannot be judged by Music Week or Billboard chart activity or reviews in the press.  A song that is being played by The Roots on the Tonight Show after 40 plus years is not a lark - and there needs to be a higher body that considers this outside of press reviews which probably did exist in 1977 but are not available, same as the Radio & Records radio airplay charts.  Most people cannot spend time going to the library looking through decades old Music Week magazines and as I have asked, even if one were to have a clipping with the review - from Sony, the label, BRE Magazine, or other trade magazines of which many are no longer in business - to what site would it be uploaded that would acceptable to you under Wikipedia guidelines?  Even Music Connection which is still actively being published in print and online, does not have it's archives online. Rosedelune (talk) 05:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * no, iMDb is not considered a reliable source (see WP:USERG) as artists can pay to edit their own articles and users can add their own content which is sometimes not checked. I know the song was released as a single and that there are YouTube videos of the song's performance, but they only prove its existence. I am not responsible for Wikipedia's guidelines, I and other editors can only follow them. I do agree with you about the problem of older records that predate the internet era not being as well represented as more recent ones due to the lack of online presence – this is an issue with Wikipedia and not one that can be solved easily. I have spent considerable time in the British Library going through back issues of Music Week, Billboard and UK and US music magazines to find information to improve song and album articles, but it's a slow process. Regarding your question, the clipping or photocopy does not need to be uploaded – if you can provide details of the article (title, name of publication it appeared in, date of issue of publication, page number, and article author if there is one), that is good enough for a Wikipedia citation. WP:PUBLISHED and WP:SOURCE say it only has to be published in a reliable source for verification purposes, but the source doesn't necessarily have to be online. Richard3120 (talk) 11:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep As an article Tequila Mockingbird (song) adheres to WP:Notability (music) under sub note 3 and WP:Notability (music) under sub notes 1, 5 & 6. As a result the article is thoroughly notable and should thus be kept altogether.Woojy88 (talk) 00:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry,, some of those assertions are completely incorrect. WP:NALBUM#1 is "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician" – no, we don't have multiple, non-trivial works... we have a couple of very brief passing mentions within the context of album reviews or live concerts, so the song is not the subject of the review and the mention is trivial. WP:NALBUM#5 is "The recording was performed in a medium that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show" – apparently this is the case, but there are no reliable sources to support this. WP:NALBUM#6 is "The recording was in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network" – this is untrue, we have a record of it being played once in 2007 and once more in 2014, both times during segments that were focusing on Ramsey Lewis, and one play of another version on a local radio station in Las Vegas. So all we are left with is WP:NSONG#3, and this is just a list of the various versions of the song that have been recorded, with no other details other than they exist. Richard3120 (talk) 11:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. While this may not yet have evolved into an edit war, per se, and the revision made were an improvement which are appreciated, it would appear in my opinion, an unreasonable and targeted effort going on to redirect and delete pages.  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) 14:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. 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) 16:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. The following is an entry on the Tahiti Hut Nomination to Delete page to the creator of these Nominations to Delete which, after being disturbed by all of this and trolling through Nominations to Delete and other tags on pages that have previously been reviewed by administrators and have had little or no significant edits, are not limited to these two songs. Doomsdays520 I understand you do not wish to read a post of this length and would not have done any of this at all, but in my opinion the guidelines need to be revised so please skip it if you are bothered by it. I have taken note of your comment and please forgive me as I do not wish to be writing any of this at all.
 * Richard3120: 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 | 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 Rosedelune (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC) Rosedelune (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

{{collapse bottom}}  {{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}} Relisting comment: Given the sock puppetry, go for another re-list

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 09:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC) {{clear}}
 * Comment after the relisting -- I voted to Merge (to the album) above as a suggested compromise, in the belief that a debate had gotten out of hand with hard feelings. Now that one of the parties had been deemed illegitimate, my vote above can be considered Delete while the associated album article can be updated slightly with a few verifiable tidbits on this song. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 19:08, 20 November 2019 (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.