Jump to content

Talk:Come On Come On (Little Birdy song)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. EdJohnston (talk) 14:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Come On Come On (song) → Come On Come On (Little Birdy song) – artist name (Little Birdy song) was removed back in 2007, but in among Come On Come On (album) C'mon C'mon (another album), then "C'mon C'mon", 2002 song by Sheryl Crow, "C'mon C'mon" 1958 single by Della Reese, C'mon! C'mon! (Bronski Beat song), "C'mon C'mon" song by Def Leppard, "C'mon C'mon" by The Von Bondies, "C'mon C'mon" by Slade, "Come On Come On" song by Mary Chapin Carpenter, "Come On Come On" by The Esquires, "Come On Come On" by Freddy Cannon, "Come On, Come On, Come On" by Tiny Topsy and The Charms, and most famous of all "Come on Come On", refrain chanted by the crowd to Gary Glitter's I'm the Leader of the Gang (I Am), and more, playing hide the song with (Little Birdy song) isn't helpful to anyone. Per also WP:SONGDAB. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - as the original creator of the article I don't have an issue with it being moved to Come on Come (Little Birdy Song) to disambiguate it from any other "Come On Come On" or "C'mon C'mon" songs. It should be noted that it is the only song with that title that has an article and on that basis it could remain until one of the other songs has a separate article, similarly the Bronski Beat song could be moved to "C'mon! C'mon!" as it is the only song with that title that has a separate article - either way I don't see it as an issue.Dan arndt (talk) 08:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh lordy. Are we disambiguating song titles based on the lyrics in other songs now? But I think Come On, Come On (Smash Mouth song) may pass WP:NSONG. I'll revisit this after I give that a try. --BDD (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BDD, "Oh lordy"? you want to delete see also "Come on Come On" chorus by Gary Glitter from the dab page because it's mistakenly used in some football sources as if it was the WP:COMMONNAME of the song when it isn't the correct name? I suggest you start a discussion on the Talk of the dab if you really want to remove it. We do actually have some folk song titles which follow WP:COMMONNAME rather than official name. I'm not aware of any pop songs which do that. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've put it back, the fact that there are football books misusing it as the song title means it is worth keeping on the dab page. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it's fine as a see also. --BDD (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – There are lots of alternative contenders for this topic, and depending on unpronounced punctuation marks seems like a generally bad idea for disambiguation of works perceived primarily by ear. This song also doesn't seem exceptionally notable – it probably fails WP:NSONG, as it has no references to sources that contain significant coverage of the song. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree that this song isn't notable as it charted in the top 20 Australian singles chart & received significant airplay at the time if it's release. It could probably do with some more references but is still in reasonable shape.Dan arndt (talk) 13:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The article fails WP:GNG

[edit]

The article cites no reliable independent sources that discuss the topic in detail. In fact, it cites no sources at all that discuss the topic in detail. It thus fails WP:GNG. This really needs to be corrected (or the article should be deleted). —BarrelProof (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely missing the point the article satisfies WP:MUSIC, in that it is a song that has charted on a nationally recognised music chart. Dan arndt (talk) 15:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should re-read the relevant part of WP:MUSIC, as its WP:NSONGS section says only that being listed on a chart would "suggest that a song or single may be notable, though a standalone article should still satisfy the aforementioned criteria." The aforementioned criteria require the song to "have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label", where "The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the song/single, its musician/band or of its publication, price listings and other non-substantive detail treatment." Thus it is clear that merely being listed on a chart does not, by itself, provide adequate evidence of notability. This article contains no citations to non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. Even if such sources existed (which is not the case here), per WP:GNG, "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. ... Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources." —BarrelProof (talk) 15:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement about all songs, with two listed exceptions

[edit]

It seems silly to talk about "all songs ... except as shown" here with listed exceptions, when there are only four tracks listed here in total and two of them are exceptions, especially when the article is primarily about a single song. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Come On Come On (Little Birdy song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Come_On_Come_On_(Little_Birdy_song)&oldid=1201059096"