Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rocks in My Bed

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 00:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rocks in My Bed

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Not enough sources exist to write an article of substance. Questionable notability. Unsourced since 2008. Merge proposal since July. Vmavanti (talk) 22:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect doesn't seem to have been any discussion about merge (only the tag), but makes sense as it doesn't seem independently notable enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are substantial references to justify the notability of this jazz standard. An even cursory glance at Google Books would have confirmed this. No Swan So Fine (talk) 09:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per No Swan's arguments. Caro7200 (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and remove the merger proposal because nobody has discussed it. The song is a well-known standard. Due to the time period, it is less likely to come up in online sources, but a Google Books search finds that the song is often discussed with various levels of detail in jazz histories of the period, and also in biographies of Duke Ellington and other notable musicians who performed the song. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I see that No Swan So Fine has expanded and improved the article since the nomination, so the WP:HEYMANN standard applies. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEYMANN is an essay, someone's opinion. It's not Wikpedia policy or a rule we need to follow. No one is obligated to follow it or read it. Linking to it is pointless.Vmavanti (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Read my comment before reacting. I said it was a "standard" (as used on that page) and not a rule that is required. Either way, it is absolutely worth consideration because you nominated the article for deletion based on its state at the time. Now someone else has improved it, so per WP:HEYMANN your argument for deleting the article has become less viable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEYMANN doesn't apply to anything. It's an essay. That's all. It can be ignored. End of story.
Vmavanti (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my last statement on this matter. You have made an incredibly unconvincing argument for dismissing the improvements made by volunteer editors for the articles that you recently nominated for deletion. Here is another essay that you can falsely claim as irrelevant: WP:LISTEN. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your reaction. I really don't. You haven't addressed my points or the facts. You just keep linking to essays. Maybe that's worked for you before, but it doesn't make sense to me. You might want to take a look at the deletion discussion for "Confirmation" where I analyze how the sources have been used incorrectly.Vmavanti (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Again, No Swan So Fine has done a lot of work after an insufficient WP:BEFORE by the nominator. I dare say a pattern is emerging here. Chubbles (talk) 14:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a pattern, it's a pattern of mistakes, ignorance, stubbornness, and refusal to change or to follow the rules and goals of Wikpedia. "Keep by default" isn't how we are supposed to approach articles on Wikipedia. It is hardly impartial or tolerant or open-minded. You might want to read the deletion discussion for "Confirmation" where I analyze how the sources have been used incorrectly. There's a blues song called "Before you accuse me, take a look at yourself."Vmavanti (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I encourage everyone reading this discussion to look at the deletion discussion Vmavanti notes above - at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Confirmation (composition). Please, by all means, examine Vmavanti's analysis and the ensuing discussion. Chubbles (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Chubs. I look forward to seeing him add sources to the 4000+ other articles in the jazz backlog stretching back twelve years. It will be nice having someone other than two people work on those unsourced and badly sourced articles and get them in shape before some Philistine tries to delete them. You know, clean up the mess the deadbeats left behind. Maybe the two of you can work on that together. There could be a barnstar in it. I have faith in both of you, as you have demonstrated your vast expertise. Good job.Vmavanti (talk) 03:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per WP:HEY. With reliable sources added by No Swan So Fine, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. My vote stands. And so does theirs. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 04:45, 30 April 2020 (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.