Talk:True Love (The Desert Rose Band album)

Merging "You Can Go Home"[edit]

The song charted at #53 on Country Songs, barely the blink of an eye on that chart. "Background" merely restates what is in the infobox. The content on its b-side and such was sourced to a fansite, and the video content was sourced entirely to a YouTube link of the video which was posted by a fan as well. If all you can do is restate what's in the infobox, then you really don't have much of a case for a song article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 13:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of chart position, the song still made an appearance on two separate notable charts. The article still has more information than the rest of The Desert Rose Band's articles on their singles. The release section information doesn't seem an issue as from what I can see using Musicstack isn't against a Wiki policy. The DRB fan site may not be a reliable source itself but the site has scans of the official single in question, so although found through a fan site, I don't see why uploaded scans is not reliable. The Critical Reception section is reliably sourced too, and the Allmusic site simply picks the song as a highlight within their own review. The YouTube link provides the source of how many views the track has received, and that's only one reference. Ajsmith141 (talk) 14:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That Allmusic picked it is immaterial. Their "picks" are totally arbitrary and have no bearing on the critical reception since the song itself is often not discussed in the article. (Furthermore, this review dates from when Allmusic was still in book form. As a book, they didn't do track listings, meaning they didn't do "track picks" either, meaning that the choices here are especially arbitrary.) I've seen "picks" in reviews where they gave the album 1 star and trashed it, or "picks" where no actual review was written. Just throwing a checkmark next to a song says nothing about how the song was received critically. Furthermore, almost everything that charted on Hot Country Songs from the 80s onward also charted on RPM in Canada — even stuff that only got to like #74 here. Just saying "it charted on two charts" isn't really a notability assertation if the chart positions are both so low. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any evidence of Allmusic's pick tags being arbitrary in this case? Even so, there is still other information that gives the article credit. Wikipedia's notability policy mentions that a song that has charted on a notable national chart then an article created can be considered notable. It doesn't say anything about a single having to have a certain amount of success. Ajsmith141 (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it also says that a charting song may be notable — not that it automatically is notable. It also says that song articles unlikely to grow beyond stubs should be redirected. This one does not seem expandable beyond a stub. There's literally nothing to say on it except repeating what's already in the infobox. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that the article can never expand from a stub. If the article should be redirected then that could be the same for all other Desert Rose Band singles which have remained stubs. Furthermore, an article such as One More Payment that I see you created has remained a stub for about two years, which only repeats what is stated in the infobox.Ajsmith141 (talk) 16:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Number one, "what about this other article?" is never a good argument. A #1 single is pretty much automatically notable, and precedent is that anything in the Top 10 stays. A song that got even to #7 is far more likely to be notable than something that didn't even make Top 40. Prove to me that it can be expanded beyond a stub — I've gone and added more info and sources to One More Payment. Tell me why you think this song is notable when the other DRB songs that failed to make Top 40 aren't. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eh.. I'd say that it should be redirected. It is just a random song from two decades ago that didn't even reach the top 50, and even a religious country music fan will never have heard it. It just has no worth. no one is going to be searching for this, and it really doesn't provide anything that can't be mentioned in the album's article. NYSMtalk page 22:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But since when did Wikipedia's notability guideline state that minor charting singles had no worth. To say that no one will have an interest in the article is only opinion and not fact. (Traffic statistics for this page: http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/You%20Can%20Go%20Home). There are many minor hit articles across Wikipedia and so I don't believe notability should be an issue, unless it was actually stated in the notability guidelines. The article itself can be expanded (for example the critical reception, there are numerous reviews of the True Love album online, but these require payment to view the articles.) I wouldn't say that other Desert Rose Band singles that don't have articles aren't notable, it is simply a question of putting together a decent article.Ajsmith141 (talk) 23:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't build articles ouf of what might be, but what is. Don't expect the house to build itself. Either build it yourself or redirect. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly possible for songs that haven't charted at all to be notable, say if they received accolades or are culturally significant, it isn't just based on chart position, it's just that this song isn't really significant in any way. The page view statistics don't really have any value, the page was searched for zero times before the page was created, and it's probable all the subsequent minor number of views are just people clicking the wikilink on the band page. There are definitely other minor hit articles that should not exist, people are constantly creating them and redirecting or deleting is hard to keep up with. If there are numerous reviews of the True Love album online then that's great for improving the True Love article, but that wont really be specific to this song. I believe that even In Another Lifetime should be redirected, and it charted 40 positions higher than this song. NYSMtalk page 00:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has anything been written about the song in a reliable source that would give information for the article, going beyond what the infobox says? If there's nothing, there's no article IMO. I think this applies no matter where a song charted. The notability of the chart is a non-issue. (Google Search is notable, but just because I "chart" on Google Search does not in itself make me notable.) If in the future the song makes a comeback and re-charts, and then a RS writes about it, then it will be notable. Unless someone can cough up a RS commenting specifically on the song, such that there's something to actually put in the article, then I'd say it doesn't qualify for its own article. -Jordgette [talk] 22:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both sources from Billboard Magazine and Discogs have now been added, whilst Allmusic, the Canadian Archive and scans of the official release seem to be reliable for Wikipedia. I don't see what remains unreliable within the article after being updated and there is also new information found regarding the song's music video as well as a Curb Record press release quote based on the track. The article clearly gives more information than what is already stated in the infobox, and it is far from just a stub as it stands now.Ajsmith141 (talk) 22:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Were you not listening when we said reviews of the song? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But since when is it compulsory for a song article to have critical reception? Are we suggesting to merge the track due to a small section that could easily be added in the future. There are reviews of the song out there (for example from The Palm Beach Post here: [1]) which could certainly be used, but it requires payment to access the archive, which is the same for other reviews like it.Ajsmith141 (talk) 23:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't preclude their use. You can probably get the gist from Google News' abstract. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One review added now, the other reviews that require payment don't really give anything away about the song. I also expect some information to be in the Billboard Magazine issues around the time, but Google only has one issue from October.Ajsmith141 (talk) 10:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a start, but the article's still borderline and I'm not big on using the fansite as a source. Particularly using just a still jpeg image. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One fan site reference now replaced with discogs link. The only other fan site link is the still image of the music video [2], which highlights the "ET/VideoLink" credit. Ajsmith141 (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]