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 Smash (album). The only keep comment that had any sensible argument in it stated, "Even though it fails WP:MUSIC...", which didn't help it's own argument. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 05:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Habit (The Offspring song)[edit]

Bad Habit (The Offspring song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable song, fails WP:MUSIC#SONGS. Contested redirect. Mdsummermsw (talk) 21:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

• Keep Whoever requested this article to be deleted needs to READ THE FUCKIN' ARTICLE, DAMN IT! According to the article itself, it was going to be the third single off the Smash before it switched to "Gotta Get Away". Despite the fact that it may or may not have been a single, KROQ's been playing it constantly every year when they first played it back in 1995. Even one of the station's countdown lists listed "Bad Habit". By all means, THERE IS NO REASON TO DELETE THIS FUCKIN' ARTICLE Alex (talk) 21:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Geez Alex, relax. Just because article has been requested for deletion doesn't mean you should get angry by adding insult to injury. Radio stations play some non-single songs sometimes, but that doesn't mean they're considered singles. 64.136.26.231 (talk) 21:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have read the article. It's a song. It doesn't pass WP:MUSIC#SONGS. If it had been a single, it still wouldn't pass. That a radio station plays/played it doesn't change that. What notability guideline do you believe this article passes? - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:Common sense.--The Skeleton (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Just keep. That's all I can say. 64.136.26.231 (talk) 21:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - On what basis? - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm with the last three guys. Let's just keep this article. Mdsummermsw is just a stupid fuckin' idiot. RaNcIdPuNkS (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - On what basis? - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Is a "live CD bootleg single" :) OffsBlink (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There is no such thing. This is a song on an album. Yes, someone put out a bootleg album and used the title of the song as the title of the bootleg. If the article is about the song, it fails WP:MUSIC#SONGS ("Most songs do not merit an article..." etc.). If the article is about the bootleg, it fails Wikipedia:Music#Albums ("...bootlegs...are in general not notable...", etc.). - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this isn't really the forum for discussing redirects, but I think that some thought should go into the notability of this song before this gets snow closed. Does the song meet: ((quote|Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.))
• If not, we should consider merging it with Smash. Protonk (talk) 00:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The song did not chart, did not win any significant awards and has not been performed by several artists. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Songs.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 02:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the song isn't a single, nor has it attained notability as a song for The Offspring in some other fashion. There are no reliable sources writing about the song. -- Whpq (talk) 17:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Smash (album). As has been noted time and again, the article fails WP:MUSIC. Just because it was supposed to be the next single, does not make it notable. The article is unsourced and makes no assertion whatsoever as to the significance of the song. The most that is needed is a line in the Smash article along the lines of "Bad Habit was going to be a single, but instead "Gotta Get Away" was released". Furthermore, Alex, you need to refrain from shouting and swearing as you did above. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect non-notable track. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 11:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, the song itself is not notable. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article is about a song written by one of the most influential bands out there. Even though it fails WP:MUSIC, I decided to vote for yes as in keep. Mr. Metal Head (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But why? You say yourself "even though it fails WP:MUSIC, you fail to give any reason why there should be an article. Please remember this is not a vote. Nouse4aname (talk) 08:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the source album. Song is not necessarily notable; WP:MUSIC and all that. Was it ever top 40? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. Libs (talk) 13:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - I am usually an Inclusionist, but I really can't see it happening for this article. It's best bet is to start off as a merge - if you can gather more citations from reliable sources later, then perhaps it can be resplit, but for the moment, it should redirect to the Album page and have a brief mention there. Also, I would be interested for a checkuser to perhaps be done on User:Alex 101, considering his(/her) use of language is very similar to that of RaNcIdPuNkS, and that they appear to try to back eachother up on this. They both seem to be entirely dedicated to music-articles, particularly those related to The Offspring. Alex has edited this article: Rancid's seventh studio album, while RaNcIdPuNkS's name links to "Rancid", and he has edited Rancid (band), which is the band in question of Rancid's seventh studio album. They have both edited Rise Against, and Template:Rise Against. They have both edited Bad Religion. The same with Appeal to Reason (album)‎... and Generator (album)... and it goes on. RaNcIdPuNkS seems to edit in "splurts" every so often, leaving sometimes months between edits - potentially because he(/she) only arrives when in need of backing up Alex? Alex also seems to have a history of obvious sockpuppeting; see the contributions of this IP - i mean... it's fairly obvious. Also, both accounts seem to have a history of having uploaded non-free-use images, having their articles deleted, and making personal attacks. Well anyway, I guess this isn't really the place for it, but pending the results of some kind of checkuser, we won't know how many accounts out of the ones discussing here, may be real. 78.146.213.30 (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - I am also usually an Inclusionist but this article doesn't have enough information. I think we should keep it long enough for more information to be added. Tezkag72 (talk) 01:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not a notable song, not a single, no sources, no notability established. Rehevkor ✉ 04:33, 19 July 2008 (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.