Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Potted Shrimp
- 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 redirect to List of songs recorded by the Rolling Stones as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 12:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Potted Shrimp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NSONG; I can't find any significant coverage of the song, and even the unreliable sources cited in the article are not about the song specifically. There doesn't seem to be a good merge/redirect target as this recording isn't on any notable release (though redirecting to potted shrimps as an alternative spelling/capitalisation of the dish is of course possible). Lennart97 (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how I am supposed to reply to this so apologies if I'm doing it incorrectly. Although you are correct in saying that the music is not especially well known or significant within the Stones' catalogue, the whole reason that this is a useful entry on wiki is that when searching for information on it one does - as you noted - get sent to Potted Shrimps the food. So I feel that having this minor but helpful entry is well worthwhile for folks who are interested in the lesser known work of the Rolling Stones - which is actually quite a considerable body of people.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Malikbek (talk • contribs) 11:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Malikbek: I've correctly formatted your reply for you. You may want to check out WP:TALK and specifically WP:SIGN. As for Potted Shrimp, your argument for keeping this article boils down to "it's useful", which is not a valid reason to keep an article; lots of topics are of interest to some specific audience but not fit for inclusion on Wikipedia, because they fail Wikipedia's notability standards. This is the case for Potted Shrimp as well, unless you can show that is has in fact received signifcant independent coverage from reliable sources. Lennart97 (talk) 11:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you Lennart97. Reading "it's useful" it says If reasons are given, "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. I thought that my reasons above ought to be enough to show such usefulness and while by your definitions the tracks are not especially prominent, I would have thought that here the usefulness argument might be allowed to trump the notability one. I do understand that one shouldn't open an endless number of pages for entirely insignificant subjects, but the whole reason I wrote about this was that it was useful and to spend time consciously removing a referenced and genuinely useful - if niche - piece of information seems a little sad and unnecessary though I greatly admire you for taking the time and trouble to work on keeping wikipedia clean of rubbish.Malikbek (talk) 10:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- You're right that usefulness can be a valid reason for keeping an article, but the reasons you've given here are, in my opinion, very unlikely to trump our core notability guideline. We don't have to ultimately agree on this matter with each other, though – the decision to keep or delete will be made by an uninvolved administrator, weighing the strength of our arguments and those of any other participants in the discussion. Lennart97 (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you Lennart97. Reading "it's useful" it says If reasons are given, "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. I thought that my reasons above ought to be enough to show such usefulness and while by your definitions the tracks are not especially prominent, I would have thought that here the usefulness argument might be allowed to trump the notability one. I do understand that one shouldn't open an endless number of pages for entirely insignificant subjects, but the whole reason I wrote about this was that it was useful and to spend time consciously removing a referenced and genuinely useful - if niche - piece of information seems a little sad and unnecessary though I greatly admire you for taking the time and trouble to work on keeping wikipedia clean of rubbish.Malikbek (talk) 10:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Malikbek: I've correctly formatted your reply for you. You may want to check out WP:TALK and specifically WP:SIGN. As for Potted Shrimp, your argument for keeping this article boils down to "it's useful", which is not a valid reason to keep an article; lots of topics are of interest to some specific audience but not fit for inclusion on Wikipedia, because they fail Wikipedia's notability standards. This is the case for Potted Shrimp as well, unless you can show that is has in fact received signifcant independent coverage from reliable sources. Lennart97 (talk) 11:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Fails WP:NSONG. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 08:39, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of songs recorded by the Rolling Stones. There is a passing mention here to verify it. The song is a brilliant kick-ass instrumental with 3/5 of the stones and Stephen Stills (and possibly Nicky Hopkins?) but that's not a reason to keep the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- 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.