Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ready 'N Steady

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Cirt (talk) 08:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ready 'N Steady

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Ready 'N Steady (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I deleted this article under A9 and was challenged on my talk page by its author, who recreated the article. I tagged it again for A9 to let another admin decide, and it was declined.

Non-notable single that may not ever have been released. This article discusses a single that possibly appeared below the Billboard Top 100 by an artist that has no article in Wikipedia and apparently cannot because no sources exist to support that such a group ever existed. The article furthermore refers to attempts to secure a copy of this single and purports that "no collector is known to have owned, or even seen or heard, the record in the last three decades" (with no citation for such an assertion). It is asserted that the single never made it to the Billboard top 100, so it doesn't appear to meet WP:NSONG on that basis.

The three sources in the article are a screen shot of a Billboard list, on which I cannot find reference to this song (not that it isn't there but I don't see it after several attempts), an article about Joel Whitburn that mentions this song in one line, and another article about Whitburn that does give the song more than passing mention, but certainly not anything like establishing notability.

So we have a single that may never have existed by a group that can't be found IRL or in the encyclopedia. Any claim that this is folk legend is not supported by the article or any of its sources, so it doesn't appear to be a meme worth including on that basis either. I could support a merge to Joel Whitburn with a line or two in his article explaining this as a curiosity, but I don't see how this article is about a subject which is notable.  Frank  |  talk  03:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hold opinion pending references. If notable, this song isn't notable as a song, it's notable for either its rarity or its non-existance. However, to establish notability, we will need to see non-trivial, significant coverage just like anything else. If references aren't added by the time this discussion closes, count me as delete. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Here are the three Bubbling Under charts from 1979: [1](scroll up), [2][3]. This from the article is "non-trivial" coverage from a reliable source. The song's notability appears to have little to do with the artist or lyrics or genre, but if coverage exists which questions if the song is real, that in itself can make this notable. For me, the key question for this to satisfy WP:NSONGS: is there "enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article"? I can view this as a keeper, but there's not a lot to work with.  Gongshow Talk 07:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 07:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. With regard to the first source (the Billboard chart at books.google.com), one has to scroll up to page 38 to find the "Bubbling Under" chart that the song appears on, but it is there. (It was actually one place ahead of "Born to Be Alive" by Patrick Hernandez that week.) The second source is a profile of Joel Whitburn, who may well be the top expert on the Billboard charts and who has been collecting basically every record to hit the charts ever. That profile, which was written 16 years after this single was allegedly released, devotes five paragraphs to "Ready 'N Steady". I believe the song is notable as either "the only chart single that Joel Whitburn couldn't find" or "the only chart single that never actually existed". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that the "chart" in question exists only to list singles that didn't make it onto a chart that would help establish notability. Certainly not every single that ever appeared on the Billboard 100 is notable; and this one - questions of its very existence aside - never appeared on the top 100.  Frank  |  talk  17:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it came within 2 positions of doing so, and during the time it was in the "Bubbling Under" list it outperformed, at various times, singles by Kenny Rogers and Dottie West, Crystal Gayle, Natalie Cole, and Roy Orbison. That's pretty impressive for an unknown single by an unknown band which may or may not have actually existed. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Oddly, what makes "Ready 'N Steady" notable is the lack of information on it. It's quite possible that the listing was some kind of hoax, perhaps perpetrated by Billboard itself, or maybe they were the victim of someone wanting to see a bogus record in the magazine. (A similar situation occured with Lou Proctor, allegedly a Western Union operator who inserted his own name into a St. Louis Browns boxscore in 1912.) A Wikipedia article may flush out more sources, and maybe we can finally get to the bottom of this mystery. RMc (talk) 13:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 06:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How do you figure that the "Bubbling Under the Hot 100" list isn't a Billboard chart? It's a ranking of singles, based on airplay and sales, which is compiled by and published in Billboard magazine. That sounds like a Billboard chart to me. See Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles. And one of the things that makes this single notable is the fact that it was listed on the chart despite the possibility that it might never have existed as an actual released recording. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's a chart that exists simply to list things that didn't make the "real" chart. Note also that the sole source for that article is the same source as for this one. Finally...let's remember that there's no verifiability that this single even exists.  Frank  |  talk  03:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to meet the GNG, even if what it's notable for is general huggermugger. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll go with Keep (had a "Comment" above). I don't believe WP:V suggests that a subject's existence is required to support an article (see the Tooth Fairy); only that information contained within articles must have appeared in a reliable source. In this song's case, its three Billboard chart appearances are verified by the three magazine issues. Notability is established with coverage in two additional sources, Deseret News and CelebrityAccess, both of which appear independent and reliable. On the whole, I feel that the subject meets WP:GNG, albeit not overwhelmingly. Whether or not "Bubbling Under" is considered a "real" chart is debatable and not at issue here because either way, to meet WP:NSONGS, there must exist "enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". In my view, there's just enough to satisfy the criteria.  Gongshow Talk 20:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gongshow's reasoning, meeting the general notability guidline. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ready_'N_Steady&oldid=1069481801"