Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tight A$


 * 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. The decision on whether to merge or keep this article is a little close - no one here is advocating deletion (the nominator changed their vote a few times) but there is some disagreement on whether to merge or keep. As some have noted that the article has undergone improvements over the course of the AFD (including the creation and expansion on a critical reception section), I've closed this as keep but recommend that discussion on possible merging continue on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 08:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Tight A$

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )


 * Delete and redirect - "Tight A$" is my favorite song from Lennon's solo work, so I did extensive research to find something notable about this song. I found absolutely nothing. The article at it's current state fails Notability (songs) as it's article and it's lone citation state that it's a song by John Lennon on the album Mind Games. The content itself just says it's a song by Lennon Mind Games and Gimme Some Truth and the musicians who play on it, but both album articles I just mentioned cover that information. To continue in the citation, John Lennon himself calls the song a "throwaway track" making it even less notable. To put things in short it fails notability, is a stub, and has one citation that calls it a "throwaway." --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Mind Games (album) - Several songs are forgotten especially if they are from the artist's first days. Google Books found one result here and Google News found minor mentions here, here and here (seventh result from the top). Billboard suggests it never charted and there isn't any evidence to suggest it was commercially used. SwisterTwister   talk  20:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - The subject passes WP:GNG. There are several books that cover the song in some detail, for example Blaney's Lennon and McCartney: together alone : a critical discography of their solo work, du Noyer's John Lennon: Whatever Gets You Through the Night, Rogan's The Complete Guide to the Music of John Lennon, Madinger and Easter's Eight Arms to Hold You and Urish and Bielen's The Words and Music of John Lennon.  And that's just a non-exhaustive list from books in my personal collection. Notability is determined by the availabilty of multiple published sources independent of the subject - those do not just include those available on the Internet.  The nominator made similar claims about the non-notability of other Lennon songs, such as "Meat City"  and "Well Well Well"  and those were quickly turned into decent articles.  It will take some time to complete all the songs that the nominator wishes to redirect, but their notability is similar to "Meat City" and "Well Well Well" and so should be kept.  Further, contrary to the nomination, at least two of the facts in the article as it exists today are not covered in the Mind Games article: the specific instruments played (and by whom) and the fact that the song is on Gimme Some Truth.  It is particularly inappropriate that the nominator wishes to "delete and redirect," since deletion prior to redirecting (even if redirecting were appropriate) would unnecessarily require an editor to perform additional work to restore the information that currently when expanding the article. Rlendog (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Well, none of the references you just mentioned are found on the "Tight A$" article which is what matters. Also it may pass the general guidelines, but because it's a song it should pass the song notability guidelines as well, which by the article's current citations, it does not even come close. It doesn't matter how much independent coverage this song has UNTIL it's being used as citation on the song's article, so if you want it to stay up, please add it. I believe articles shouldn't exist UNTIL they've been made into decent articles, and as of now the "Tight A$" is redundant information already covered by the Mind Games album. Honestly, "Meat City" and "Well Well Well" now only have a description how their music and some quotes from the band and they don't pass song notability either. Quotes like "Meat City" shows Lennon excited and disturbed by the "abandonment of reason rock 'n' roll could elicit from its audience." (From Meat City's article) and  "clenched" and "grunge-like" and claims that Starr's drumming is "some of Ringo's toughest." (From Well Well Well's article) are neither famous nor impressive. If you'd like to transform "Tight A$"  from a short non notable article into a long non notable article, please don't. Songs should either be singles (hopefully charting), receive a lot of media coverage, have a cultural impact, be covered by many other artists, have a very unusual structure/technique that inspired something, or anything that actually means something to someone who's not a huge John Lennon fanatic (Such as myself) (which I'm not accusing you of this, but instead mentioning the only people who would ever look up this article) If what's on "Meat City" and "Well Well Well" are the most notable things you can come up with, they should be deleted as well. This isn't a John Lennon fan wiki. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to be making up your own personal notability guidelines, which is fine but Wikipedia deletion discussions should be based on Wikipedia's guidelines. Wikipedia's notability guidelines, basically "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list," cover all topics, including songs.  And per WP:NNC, "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability."  And even if you are not impressed by the information in the "Meat City" or "Well Well Well" articles, what makes them notable is the multiple reliable sources saw fit to give them significant coverage; that they were impressed enough by the facts about the song is Wikipedia's standard, not your personal preferences. Nor my personal preferences - I added the information that I was interested in to these articles, which is hardly all the information that could be added. Rlendog (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Further Comments - When I said it wasn't impressive I meant it's the type of information that gets deleted for being trivial non Wikipedian information.  When it comes to articles, it not about "facts" it's about notability.

From the general guidelines: Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent.

Nothing of about "Tight A$" or "Meat City" agrees with the general guidelines of "Independant of Subject" since all of the quotes in "Meat City" are ones said by Lennon and "Tight A$" still is just an article that mentions the exists, what album it's on, it's line-up, and nothing else.

From NSONGS: "an article about a musical recording that does not attempt to indicate why its subject is important or significant is eligible for speedy deletion under criterion A9." Making all 3 songs eligible for deletion. Unlike most of the criteria for a song article, that's not just a suggestion, but a guideline. Also it means that they not only have criteria for AfD, but even criteria for speedy deletion--Mrmoustache14 (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Everything in the "Meat City" article meets "independent of the subject," except the quote from the lyrics and arguably the one quote from Lennon, and even that is reported by a source independent of Lennon. As for WP:CSD A9, that applies only if the article "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant and where the artist's article does not exist (both conditions must be true).  The John Lennon article certainly exists, so I am not sure why you believe that A9 is at all relevant. Rlendog (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but all I see in their articles is a huge collection of information that doesn't prove these songs have any notability. The articles almost make it seem like "It's by John Lennon so of course it's notable!" which is anything, but true. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 23:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * All Wikipedia is a "huge collection of information." What makes that information notable is that multiple reliable independent sources saw fit to write about (or otherwise discuss, e.g., documentaries about POB which discuss all the songs on the album) that information. In any case, taking "Meat City," I am not sure why you claim that Lennon's inspiration for the song or critical reaction to the song is non-notable.  In your original comment on my talk page  you stated that "a source describing why he wrote it" or "an depth critical response" would even satisfy your criteria. Rlendog (talk) 23:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Isn't "BeatlesBible.com" a fan site? (Old Dirt Road's only citation) --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You may be correct about that. I added a better source for some of the information, but I don't have Blaney handy.  I won't object if you remove the "personnel" until I have a chance to add the appropriate source to that book, if it really bothers you. Rlendog (talk) 23:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

All I know is that a fan site is not a reliable citation... so if I delete it "Old Dirt Road" is now subject for immediate removal. As for "Tight A$" it's allmusic references of "Mind Games" just mentions it's being on the album, which makes it a good citation for the Gimme Some Truth album article, but not suitable for this article, since yet all that citation does it mention it's existence. As for the other citation from allmusic for Mind Games it's the same story, except it also mentions it with "Meat City" which makes it look like a bad citation for an article specifically for "Tight A$" and better suited to one on the entire Mind Games album. If you think a description of each songs's musical arrangement is necessary, the Mind Games article itself is rather short and I feel that your book on John Lennon would do way more good there than on an article of a non notable song such as this. It's unimportant songs like this having articles that keeps information that should be on album articles from being there. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 23:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The Allmusic site has little bearing on the notability of this song (or "Old Dirt Road"). You raised a legitimate concern about the current state of sourcing of these articles, and I addressed it (to the extent I could at the moment). When I add a better source for the personal, that in itself will also have little bearing on the notability of these songs.  The notability of these songs rests on the many published references which provide significant coverage, in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines. Rlendog (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Until these citations are on the article their existence doesn't matter. Temporary citations act as poor citations that should be removed because of lack of credibility, and no where in Wikipedia's guidelines says it's okay for an article to temporarily have insufficient citations. Unless add you proper citations now, the article currently still has no credible citations. Also both article's content is still at the same state as originally adressed: redundant. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 00:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not sure where you are getting this notion of "temporary citations." Everything in the article is currently reliably sourced.  The only citation that may need to come out is the Beatle Bible link, but the information sourced there now also has an additional reliable source supporting it.  And now there is even (a little bit) more non-redundant information in the article than there was before. Rlendog (talk) 14:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * New comment - I see you added some information, but remember it's also part of the guidelines that articles that don't have much of a chance from growing past a stub should be deleted. The information you added still makes it a stub. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 01:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You are still mistaking the current state of the article for what it could be. WP:NSONGS states that song "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album."  The article is currently a stub but has the potential to grow beyond a stub using the sources I mentioned above, and others.  In addition, I'll just emphasize that NSONGS says that articles unlikely to "grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album."  It does not say they should be deleted. Rlendog (talk) 14:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, per Rlendog. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 14:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - I saw you added a lot of information, although it's still a stub. If you do as you say and add even more information, I won't have a problem if it stays up, but as of now I don't change my vote. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I saw you added even more information and the critical reception section is decently sized. So I'll change my vote to Keep, but please fix the other stub/poorly referenced Lennon or else it will seem like I have to nominate those articles for deletion as well for you to fix them. For me it's a win-win because either a poorly referenced stub gets taken down, or it gets turned into a decently sized and well referenced article. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge, until a more a substantial version of the article exists I don't think its a good idea to keep it because "it might grow in size". At the moment the article itself is borderline on notable. I believe the information could easily be merged into the parent album. One key thing you should ask is if the coverage about the subject is primary. In this case many of the references, they primarily refer to the album as a whole and not directly to the song itself. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  15:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Merge - Oh wow you're right... um... I hate changing my vote again, but that's probably the best point brought up yet. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 16:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge to Mind Games. This is clearly encyclopedic, well-sourced content. --Michig (talk) 17:44, 25 December 2012 (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.