Talk:Pet Sounds (instrumental)
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
redirect[edit]
WP:N says something is notable when it has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The song Pet Sounds easily passes this test. It has been covered in many different sources. Instead of continuing to redirect the article, I would recommend that you take it to WP:AFD if you do not agree. Thanks. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 13:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Per WP:NSONGS, "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album."—indopug (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- The application of WP:NSONGS actually violates WP:CRYSTAL in this case. We don't know that it is unlikely to grow beyond a stub. Given the notability of the LP and the articles on all the other songs, it is very likely that more will be written on this particular song, more covers recorded and so on. Likewise, this article contains a sound file which is important to retain. Not every song is notable, but the individual tracks on such an acclaimed LP are notable and this article can very much be expanded. freshacconci talktalk 18:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well then, why hasn't it grown beyond a stub so far, while all other Pet Sounds song article have? Fact is, this is an instrumental, and there isn't that much to talk about. When somebody is able to craft a 3-4 paragraph article that reliably sourced, this article can be reinstated. Otherwise, it is mostly redundant to Pet Sounds.
- Also, CRYSTAL says nothing about application of this WP:NSONGS rationale; it talks only about article content.—indopug (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well, there's no timeline on these things and having an article on the song is a) of no harm to the Wikipedia project as a whole; and b) keeps things consistent with the rest of the LP. As for CRYSTAL, what I meant of course is that we have no way of knowing whether or not the article will grow beyond a stub (which I clearly stated above). Redirecting is pointless bureaucratic paper-shuffling. The article isn't redundant as it provides important info for that one track (musicians, songwriter, history, sound file) that would be awkward in the main article. I don't believe every song requires an article but the individual tracks of an important LP should have separate articles. Being an instrumental is irrelevant. freshacconci talktalk 19:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- The application of WP:NSONGS actually violates WP:CRYSTAL in this case. We don't know that it is unlikely to grow beyond a stub. Given the notability of the LP and the articles on all the other songs, it is very likely that more will be written on this particular song, more covers recorded and so on. Likewise, this article contains a sound file which is important to retain. Not every song is notable, but the individual tracks on such an acclaimed LP are notable and this article can very much be expanded. freshacconci talktalk 18:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)