| Revision as of 01:22, 24 July 2009 editFingerz (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers4,525 edits →Single: sign← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:07, 24 July 2009 edit undoDas Ansehnlisch (talk | contribs)872 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| :::::Ok, quoting NSONGS:<blockquote> Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.</blockquote> Now, let's ask ourselves, is there enough verifiable material as of right now to write an article that actually has enough information to be useful to readers? If you could show us some independently sourced information that's more useful than the info we have right now, "This song is going to be a single on X date", then we can discuss if there's enough to warrant a separate article. ]] 01:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC) | :::::Ok, quoting NSONGS:<blockquote> Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.</blockquote> Now, let's ask ourselves, is there enough verifiable material as of right now to write an article that actually has enough information to be useful to readers? If you could show us some independently sourced information that's more useful than the info we have right now, "This song is going to be a single on X date", then we can discuss if there's enough to warrant a separate article. ]] 01:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::Oh and Das Ansehnlisch, ] are not tolerated, and are hardly going to help your case. ]] 01:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC) | ::::::Oh and Das Ansehnlisch, ] are not tolerated, and are hardly going to help your case. ]] 01:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::In answering your first question, YES!!!. Heck I already did. Just let me go back, make a new page about the son..er..single and it will be a good page. Glass of Water is a great page 'o info, too.--] (]) 15:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:07, 24 July 2009
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 2 June 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was redirect to Viva la Vida or Death and All His Friends. |
Single
Just heard the track on Xfm. It's also on their playlist . Looks like it might be a single. You might want to remove that redirect. MotorsportPete93 (talk) 11:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- We need a reliable source to verify it's going to be a single. Lots of songs get played on radio but don't get released as a single. --JD554 (talk) 12:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- It is a single now. The announcement came out to the Coldplay mailing list and appeared on their website this morning. The article, as it was at the last revision, however, is terrible and sounds like a fanboy wiki article, not an encyclopedia entry. Definitely in need of a rewrite, but there is verifiable evidence out there (even shiny new single artwork) that proves that the article should be reinstated ... I'm just too lazy to cite it properly and get the ball rolling. Anyone else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.225.137.250 (talk • contribs)
The band's official website confirmed that a new video for "Strawberry Swing" will be released in early August, and a digital-only single will come out on September 14. Here's the announcement: http://www.coldplay.com/newsdetail.php?id=441. That page also includes the single's artwork. Cbing01 (talk) 03:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- We still need to wait until the single has been written about in reliable sources. Until then, the article wouldn't meet the notability criteria at WP:NSONGS or WP:GNG. --JD554 (talk) 09:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Because the band's official website isn't a reliable source? That makes less than no sense. I can site a half a dozen examples from the last year where wikipedia contained wrong information from "reliable sources" that was then trumped by underground information that was proven to be true. That aside, the band's own website is hardly underground information. I don't know why this can't be accepted. And if all you've got to stand on are wikipedia rules, then the rules need to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.225.137.250 (talk • contribs)
- Just because it's being released as a single doesn't make it notable. It still needs to meet the conditions at WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS. --JD554 (talk) 06:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
The video has been officially released online today. --94.43.112.105 (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- JD445, all that you follow is rules. Sometimes to get the best results, rules must be broke, or as the Joker said "The only sensible way to live in this world is without rules", Ect. Hey are you part of a Misplaced Pages organization called "Delete Dept.", cause it sure seems like it. Plus, how can a band's official website not be a reliable source? Screw You JD445.--Das Ansehnlisch (talk) 14:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- If you actually read WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS you would see that the sources needed are independent reliable sources. The band's official website is hardly independent. --JD554 (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- So. It's still their website they operate from.--Das Ansehnlisch (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, quoting NSONGS:
Now, let's ask ourselves, is there enough verifiable material as of right now to write an article that actually has enough information to be useful to readers? If you could show us some independently sourced information that's more useful than the info we have right now, "This song is going to be a single on X date", then we can discuss if there's enough to warrant a separate article. Fingerz 01:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.
- Oh and Das Ansehnlisch, personal attacks are not tolerated, and are hardly going to help your case. Fingerz 01:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- In answering your first question, YES!!!. Heck I already did. Just let me go back, make a new page about the son..er..single and it will be a good page. Glass of Water is a great page 'o info, too.--Das Ansehnlisch (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Oh and Das Ansehnlisch, personal attacks are not tolerated, and are hardly going to help your case. Fingerz 01:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, quoting NSONGS:
- So. It's still their website they operate from.--Das Ansehnlisch (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- If you actually read WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS you would see that the sources needed are independent reliable sources. The band's official website is hardly independent. --JD554 (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- JD445, all that you follow is rules. Sometimes to get the best results, rules must be broke, or as the Joker said "The only sensible way to live in this world is without rules", Ect. Hey are you part of a Misplaced Pages organization called "Delete Dept.", cause it sure seems like it. Plus, how can a band's official website not be a reliable source? Screw You JD445.--Das Ansehnlisch (talk) 14:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)