Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One-hit wonders of Alternative Guises in the UK

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to One-hit wonders in the UK. MBisanz ^talk 01:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One-hit wonders of Alternative Guises in the UK

Pure original research. 'Alternative guises'? I'm not even sure what that means other than a catch-all excuse for including trivia, and neither the article nor Google are of much help. CalendarWatcher (talk) 09:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid this argument is pure nonsense. I have researched this matter with the help of Google searches and the Guiness Hit Singles book itself. The article has already been there for a few months and no-one else has had a problem with it. The article also explains what is meant by alternative guises so anyone who has actually read the article will know so to say I'm not even sure what that means just shows that this person has not read the article. This article was created to accompany the One-hit Wonders in the UK article as the acts mention ed are one hit wonders however they consist of artists who in themselves are not OHWs. It would not have been right to include them in the main article so I thought this was the best solution. --Cexycy (talk) 11:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, it's an Original Research fork, using inclusion criteria, standards, and specific terminology (such as 'Alternative Guises') of your choosing. As for the expression 'Alternative Guises', would you mind giving the original source of that term and where it's being used by someone other than yourself, because Google was no help there, only throwing up this article and various mirrors? --CalendarWatcher (talk) 11:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny you should say that because it is a term used by the Guiness Hit Singles book. Once again I really don't see what you're getting at. When people look at the main OHW article there is a link there to this article and therefore it is there to support it. I did try having the two articles together but it just got a little messy therefore I created a new article. --Cexycy (talk) 12:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except that most of entries in the article are not "one-hit-wonders". They are duos of mainstay artists. The title is misleading, the content is dull. Merge, if it's worth saving at all. NVO (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you READ the article? I don't believe you have otherwise you would not be saying that. The acts listed are OHWs in THAT guise only. The artiocle clearly states that the artists involved have had other hits but just not under that name or grouping. --Cexycy (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. It's a fork of One-hit wonders in the UK using a broader definition, but since there is no universally accepted definition, it should be a section there. Rd232 ^talk 11:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment above. --Cexycy (talk) 12:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as a section in One-hit wonders in the UK. Just because a term is used in one book, it does not become suitable as a criterion for a Wikipedia list article. In my opinion, this article is excluded by WP:NOTDIR#5; it is a non-encyclopedic cross-categorisation. --Rogerb67 (talk) 12:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On further inspection, I think that the One-hit wonders in the UK article itself suffers from many of the same issues; despite the trivia, arbitrary definition of inclusion criteria and cross-categorisation issues, that article does have a stronger claim of cultural significance. I will leave my recommendation as-is therefore, and consider listing One-hit wonders in the UK for discussion if this article is merged or deleted. --Rogerb67 (talk) 13:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then maybe a merge would be a good idea however this would make the article quite long and people may not always be interested in the whole thing, maybe just one part or the other, hence why I created the seperate article in the first place. --Cexycy (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If a split is needed (and it isn't yet according to WP:SPLIT), I don't think this would be a good criterion. Perhaps splitting by decade (I note the entries are dated and in chronological order) or something equally objective would be more appropriate. --Rogerb67 (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge (see below). This article doesn't even reflect what I thought it would from the title. (I had expected from the title to see the UK equivalents of "Don't Think Twice" by The Wonder Who?, or "(Meet) The Flintstones" by the B.C.-52's -- in other words, established artists who had one additional hit using a different name.) There is nothing surprising about an ad hoc duet recording only one hit song together nor is it a sign of lack of success that a collaboration records only one hit single together. Theoretically, the content of this article might be worth saving under a title focusing on the fact that the songs described are collaborations, rather than a title which unnecessarily refers to them as "one hit wonders". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Upon further consideration, I think this article could be slightly merged into One-hit wonders in the UK. The slight merger could consist of a heading stating something like "The following collaborations are classified as 'one-hit wonders' by Guinness Hit Singles because these particular combinations of artists had a single #1 hit with no other chart entries in this particular configuration. However, in each case, the participating artists had additional hits separately." Then just list the artists, song titles, and years (I'd recommend a chronological list). It wouldn't be necessary to state for each such collaboration, "They never had any further chart entries together as a duo, but each has had many other chart entries separately", "They had no further hits together but they have have hits by themselves", "Both singers have had other hits, but nothing else together", or other similar comments as this article does repeatedly. (There are a few non-collaboration examples that don't fit this description, such as Chef and Tubeway Army, which can be dealt with in a separate section.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You were expecting "established artists who had one additional hit using a different name". How is the article NOT about that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cexycy (talk • contribs)

Well, I do see at least one example of that in the article: Chef, who was actually Isaac Hayes recording as his South Park character. But I don't think that, for example, "David Bowie and Mick Jagger" is an "alternative guise" for either Bowie or Jagger; it's a collaboration of the two of them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well according to the Guiness Hit Singles, the book this whole thing is based on, "David Bowie and Mick Jagger" are a guise as such. As you know David Bowie is one artist, established and had may hits for himself, the same goes for Mick Jagger. Together they technically another artist as they did use another name, in this case it was quite simply "David Bowie and Mick Jagger". I know this sounds a little pedantic, but thats what the article is mainly about, an act which has topped the charts, going to numberone and having nothing else. A one-off collaboration is no guarentee that it will go to number one, nor is it a guarentee that they will not release another single. This artcile is about listing such artist who are OHW in a certain name, but not overall. It's hard to explain, but I'm sure you understand. --Cexycy (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I wasn't aware that this article was up for deletion. I have put a lot of work into the parent article, but contested these inclusions in that the multitude of one-off duets wasn't really noteworthy. If you look at the talk page you'll see an endless discussion where neither could agree, but to be fair it's a debatable subject (if you look at the 1st archive on the talk page you'll see that the situation used to be much worse - and that discussion went on for several years!). In the end, I agreed to a seperate article as it got rid of the non-worthy cases. My other solution was to have these one-off duets as a list at the end of the article, which is a possibility - but they're definietly not worth anything other than that. So I would suggest a merge rather than a delete, but would need to be reworked into a basic list. Criterion for one hit wonders is a minefield and there is no definite solution (by anyone - ever) so without going into original research, the Guinness Book of British Hit Singles criteria was used as it's been since 1977 the most authoritive word on the charts (hell, they were the ones that defined which charts were official - and are now universally accepted). --Tuzapicabit (talk) 13:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I also put in a lot of work for the parent article and as the above user just stated we had a lot of disagreements, but no problem, I even suggested to him (or her) that maybe a new article for such a list would be a better idea, to which s/he agreed that would be a good idea. This was suggested after Tuzapicabit said that the article was starting to look a mess. Why isn't anyone listening to me? I guess if what has happened isn't a good idea, I would suggest a merge, which is what I was originally working for in the first place. Can't say fairer than that. Merge it in at the end as a seperate list as we all agree they are OHWs but they also are not, if you see what I mean. --Cexycy (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't think that, for example, "David Bowie and Mick Jagger" is an "alternative guise" for either Bowie or Jagger; it's a collaboration of the two of them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, finally someone who agrees with my point! This was exactly my point of reason for not including these - "David Bowie and Mick Jagger" are not an act in their own right - they are 2 seperate chart artists and were never intended to be seen as a new act starting out - and the very title the record was put out under acknowledges it (also if this was the case - David Bowie and Mick Jagger would be an article and of course it isn't). So can't we just exclude all these one-off collaborations completely. I've already suggested a merge but I'm bordering on delete because it muddies the water of what the article is actually about if somebody who's less well-informed comes to the page and then sees mention of Bowie, Jagger, etc. --Tuzapicabit (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per my above post and having had a long think on the subject, the seperate article is ill-explained and can only cause confusion as to what a One Hit Wonder is should anyone visit the article. --Tuzapicabit (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - as per the directly above post, how about we just merge the articles and change the explaination a little, and thus eliminate confusion? As for one-off collaborations which were not meant to be a new act starting out, the reason why they never charted again is irrelavent. The article is meant to be about listing acts which had a number 1 and nothing else, full stop. Any additional information can still be added inbetween acts listed as has always been the case. --Cexycy (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have merged in this article with the parent article and done a little tidying up, what does everyone think of this? It can always be undone if not too good. --Cexycy (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I recently removed acts from the One-hit wonders in the UK article which were on both lists but that was reverted by Tuzapicabit not really sure why. That illustrates the confusion surrounding this ill defined fork. Better to have it as a subsection of the One-hit wonders in the UK article. Valenciano (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.