Talk:Melt My Heart to Stone

Adele Low‑importance

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Adele, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Adele on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AdeleWikipedia:WikiProject AdeleTemplate:WikiProject AdeleAdele articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

R&B and Soul Music Mid‑importance

	R&B and Soul Music portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music articles
Mid	This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Songs

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Proposed deletion?

I don't see how the information in the article doesn't qualify as significant coverage. And worst-case scenario, couldn't it just be redirected to 19 (Adele album) instead of being flat-out deleted? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 08:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- For starters,
  WP:DEPROD clearly states that any user, even the creator of the article, can deprod an article (a PROD and an AFD are not the same thing). But more importantly, I suggested that the article could possibly be redirected to 19 (Adele album) as a worst-case scenario...but then it was redirected only hours later with no kind of discussion? I mean, SNUGGUMS even said him/herself in his/her edit summary that the sources are reliable (btw, why was Calvin removing sourced information? (And what didn't happen?)) I invite the aforementioned users (and anyone else) to have a discussion about this (and a calm discussion; thus, edit summaries like this aren't helpful). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 20:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - Sources were reliable, but six or seven for an article is not enough. I removed info about a non-existent music video because if there wasn't one, then there's nothing to say. It's like saying "Adele went to the Grammy's but didn't perform". if it didn't happen, we don't include it. You clearly don't know the Music eligibility and notability criteria and shouldn't be editing if you think the 5 sentence article you produced was sufficient. I've seen articles which are longer and bigger than this get deleted. — Calvin999 20:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay, you need to chill out with the character assassination. I have been creating music-related articles for years without dispute. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 20:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - And it would be nice if you refrained from redirecting the article while the discussion is ongoing. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 20:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - (
        WP:SONGS. I can go through the criteria and paste it here and show you how it fails everything to reinforce it to your more so if you like? And there is no further discussion to be had, you have no case here. — Calvin999 20:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
        ]

Epert, you've misinterpreted my edit summary. My comment wasn't so much about the reliability of the sources used as it was the coverage that reliable sources give. WP:NSONGS states the following:

"Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work. Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created."

It also says that "a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album."

With this said, the article doesn't meet notability criteria as it is unlikely to grow beyond a stub. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See, now, that is the way a response should be given in a discussion like this. Anyway, I generally avoid creating articles about non-charting promotional singles, but I still feel as though the article edges past notability standards. I won't lose sleep if you still want to redirect it though. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 22:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will redirect this to the album. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OWN. I was getting angry because you wasn't listening, I repeated myself multiple times. If anything, you was provoking me. I've taken this page off my watch list, and I won't look at or respond to any nonsensical replies. — Calvin999 07:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply

]