Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tequila Mockingbird (song): Difference between revisions

Tequila Mockingbird (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 23:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 23:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Delete per Sergecross73 and the nominator's statement. Aoba47 (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepThe 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. 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.