Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Missing My Baby

Missing My Baby[edit]

This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page.

The result was: scheduled for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 31, 2015 by Brianboulton (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Missing My Baby" is a song released by American Tejano music recording artist Selena on her third studio album Entre a Mi Mundo (1992). It was composed by A.B. Quintanilla—her brother and principal record producer, whose intention was to showcase Selena's diverse musical abilities. Selena included it on the album to help her cross over into the English-speaking market. Critics praised her emotive enunciation in the song. "Missing My Baby" is a mid-tempo R&B ballad influenced by urban and soul music. The lyrics describe the love felt by the narrator, who reminisces of rhapsodic events she has shared with her lover. In some parts of the song, the narrator experiences loneliness and anguish because of the absence of her boyfriend. Although never intended to be released as a single, the track peaked at number 22 on the US Rhythmic Top 40 chart in 1995. The track was one of the first songs to be played by radio stations after Selena was shot and killed by her friend and former manager of her boutiques on March 31, 1995. A posthumous music video made for VH1 was released in 1998 to promote the triple box-set Anthology (1998). (Full article...)

Most recent similar article(s): The first Latin music-related article since Romances (February 14, 2015), and the first music-related article since "Cry Me a River" (January 25, 2015)
Main editors: User:AJona1992
Promoted: October 27, 2012
Reasons for nomination: Selena's 20th death anniversary, was trying to get her death article to take this place but there is a zero to slim chance of it getting to FA in time for her death anniversary.
Support as nominator. jona ^(talk) 23:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, with so many articles to be run at TFA, we can do better than 934 words of readable prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added that the song was one of the first of her's to be played after she was killed, I hope that's fine for you. Best, jona ^(talk) 17:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AJona1992, what SandyGeorgia means is that the article itself is only 934 words long and that TFA's time would be better spent displaying a more substantial article. Adding words to the blurb can't fix that. Expanding the article with extra high-quality sources, particularly any that been published since the article achieved FA status, would be a way to address that. Bencherlite ^Talk 11:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If such a position were expressed at FLC, I'd consider it inactionable. Unless Sandy can indicate that there are RSes that haven't been consulted and can be used to expand the article further, I don't think that's really valid grounds for an oppose. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've also misunderstood Sandy's point. This isn't FAC/FLC and Sandy isn't saying that this shouldn't be a featured article. She's saying that, when choosing between FAs for the purpose of TFA, this has a lower priority than others because it is one of our shorter FAs. It's clearly not everybody's view, and the date connection goes into the balance on the other side in any case. But opposes at TFAR don't have to be based on FA criteria, and Sandy isn't opposing on FA criteria grounds. Bencherlite ^Talk 10:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Bencherlite; I thought the purpose of this page was known. Here the community chooses which FAs they want to see run TFA, and since there are many to choose from, we express our preferences. I don't support running double or triple TFAs, "Fuck" et al TFAs, second or third re-runs of already ran TFAs, and very very short TFAs, among others. And I intensely dislike death anniversaries. Of course, the community frequently disagrees with me, but that doesn't mean I can't go on record, or that at least when we get the inevitable complaints about the short article, folks can see that the issue was at least discussed at TFAR. As long as the community does not use this page to express their views on TFA, they have no claim to complaints at MAINPAGE errors. Thanks for your continued dedication, Bencher! (I think Crisco meant FAC, not FLC.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, although the point could arise at either venue, I'd guess Crisco did mean FLC, because he's an FLC delegate not an FAC delegate and so would only be taking decisions about the point at FLC. Bencherlite ^Talk 15:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know my featured processes. I meant FLC. I did not mean to apply FL criteria to Sandy's position to any featured criteria, but was stating that this is the sort of objection that I, as a delegate, consider inactionable and untenable, using a context that most of us are familiar with. Sandy, I know what TFA is for. I've used it off and on for several years already, and I'd be a right fool to accept a delegate's position without knowing or reading up on this page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not understanding your message: are you saying you still consider this an "inactionable" oppose at TFAR? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that it's not the kind of oppose that would get me to override consensus established by other editors. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well that's a horse of different color, obviously. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - readable prose aside.. the article is informative and for the date suggested a good inclusion.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I feel that any FA should be allowed to run as a TFA - if they aren't, we're simply lying to our wide-eyed contributors by suggesting otherwise. Expansion would surely be helpful, but length alone seems like an especially silly reason not to allow a TFA-ing to take place. Tezero (talk) 02:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Tezero. Erick (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support while I see Sandy's points that there are more substantial FAs out there that have yet to be TFA, the date connection + the extra variety of music helps. Bencherlite ^Talk 10:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, following Tezero, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - We do not apply length criterion to TFAs, nor do we apply a separate notability criterion. There is no "Cream of the cream of the crop" that we have to limit ourselves to. All FAs, assuming they still meet the FA criteria, can be TFA. If there is consensus against running an article (for whatever reason: controversy, possible copyright concerns, timing, etc.), that should be heeded, but that doesn't change an article's intrinsic possibility of being shown on the main page. (And no, my position on this is not likely to change). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very interesting take on the point of the TFAR page from a TFAR delegate. Yes, any FA can be TFA, and no one has said they can't: the community still gets to express preferences about which to run, considering we have an excess. That's the point of the page. You may also express a preference (and in this case it doesn't matter, since no one agrees with me), but it doesn't seem that you are clear on the purpose of the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And if the community (not one person, the community; consensus does not mean "one dissenting voice") agrees with you, then it would be considered. If a single person opposes, and nobody else agrees, I will not overrule community consensus. If this were a copyvio or something, then I'd have to take action. You may not have approved my selection, but I do not appreciate being said to be "unclear" on the purpose of a page that I and my fellow delegates are to manage. I didn't say, after all, that I would ignore such objections completely. Read my reply: If there is consensus against running an article ... for whatever reason. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now that is more clear, but did not seem to be what you were saying in your earlier post. It seemed that you were saying earlier that you would reject the oppose, period. Nowhere in your initial posts (see for example, 09:40, 18 February 2015 and 01:21, 25 February 2015) did you say anything about "consensus", and your first post was taking a strong position that appeared to be against the purpose of this page. They were either unclear, or you've changed your mind. I submit that clarification is a good thing, and taking offense when one is a Delegate/Coordinator in a task where clarity is often requested is best left at the doorstep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support what a lot of kerfuffle over a non-issue (too short? What nonsense: it was long enough to become FAC, it is long enough to become TFA). I see someone has lost sight of what this page is for, and I don't think its Crisco. - SchroCat (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - per Schrocat. --BabbaQ (talk) 17:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]