Talk:Holes (Passenger song)

Requested move 5 August 2017[edit]

The following is a closed 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: not moved. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 23:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Holes (Passenger song) → Holes (song) – Because of the redirection of the other song with the same name, this is now the only song with an article called "Holes". 2601:8C:4001:DCB9:B4C1:31AC:3E37:C68E (talk) 12:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. EvertonFC13^(talk2me) 15:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Existence of an article is not the only thing to consider. There are other songs with this title and this particular version has no special notability. older ≠ wiser 13:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). @2601:8C:4001:DCB9:B4C1:31AC:3E37:C68E and Bkonrad: please discuss. SkyWarrior 17:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 92 in UK shouldn't really make a song notable enough for an entry in an encyclopedia. Taken together the others amount to as meaningful to fans of other artists. There's be another one along soon enough. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

add 'Oppose' to 'Comment' I see the 1999 song which had an article has since been unblanked/unredirected and sources added. As suspected turns out to have been more notable than thought. But even without it. With a common/generic title and a not Beatles-level recognition, we should err towards clear titling. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Per WP:SONGDAB and the RFC, we do not include the artist name unless there are multiple articles on songs of the same name requiring additional disambiguation.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Cuchullain: now that there is an article of another song with the same name, would there be any change in your vote? f e minist 16:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, now that the second article has been created, Holes (song) is not a workable title. Though the new article is very weak.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is as noted above by In ictu oculi a barely notable song, with a name that is shared with at least eleven others by notable artists, see hole#songs. No evidence that this song is more significant than all the others combined, or more likely to be the desired result of a search than all the others combined, so while the letter of the guidelines may be obscure the intent is clear, and the way to achieve best reader experience even clearer. Andrewa (talk) 05:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No evidence provided to indicate one version of the song is more widely known by this title than the others. older ≠ wiser 15:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There's this article with the same song title, and dozens of others just as "Hole" per this, so WP:SMALLDETAILS would apply. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:05, 13 August 2017 (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.