- 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. No !votes to delete aside from nominator (who should really sign his/her name...), arguments about discussion of song accepted. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 09:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Who Am I Living For?
- Who Am I Living For? ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NSONGS and WP:GNG for no significant coverage outside of album reviews.
- Keep. Despite a lack of significant coverage, which I'm inclined to favor in song articles, and which is heavily recommended in WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS, the latter guideline does have some flexibility in allowing articles on non-notable songs. NSONGS notes that even if a song is not notable, an article is "appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". So, while my preference is to not have a standalone article when it consists entirely of trivial, non-independent coverage (i.e., sheet music, liner notes, a non-significant chart placement, and single-sentence mentions within the context of album reviews), current consensus supports a different outcome, which is to keep articles on songs that do not meet WP:GNG but satisfy the "reasonably detailed" sentence of WP:NSONGS. Gong show 18:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- I must say I'm surprised by you voting keep when you acknowledge it lacks significant coverage. Not sure where a consensus opposing WP:NSONGS and/or WP:GNG is held. This isn't exactly that detailed, either..... XXSNUGGUMSXX ( talk) 18:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- "A reasonably detailed article" as defined by NSONGS is when it has grown beyond a stub, a bar which this article has surpassed. The clause does not explicitly require the material to have been obtained within significant/non-trivial/non-independent coverage.
Gong
show 18:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstood the part of "reasonably detailed". "Notability aside" doesn't mean that length covers up for lack of notability, it was saying that however notable something might be, the notable thing(s) would require enough in-depth coverage to make something more than a stub. Even if not explicitly in NSONGS, GNG requires more coverage, which this fails. XXSNUGGUMSXX ( talk) 19:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- "A reasonably detailed article" as defined by NSONGS is when it has grown beyond a stub, a bar which this article has surpassed. The clause does not explicitly require the material to have been obtained within significant/non-trivial/non-independent coverage.
Gong
show 18:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. As Gongshow has stated above, the article passes the "reasonably detailed" requirement of
WP:NSONGS. It's rare that any song receives commentary outside of an album review (the only exception usually being a lead single). I'm quite content with the amount of information available and her discussing the song in great detail is a bonus. —
Status (
talk ·
contribs) 02:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- You seem to have misunderstood the "reasonably detailed" bit of WP:NSONGS as well. The "reasonably detailed" bit does NOT include comments from album reviews and doesn't indicate that length can take precedence over lack of notability/significant coverage. Commentary from song authors themselves don't really count for much, either. Plenty of songs that aren't lead singles get significant coverage outside of album reviews, but this isn't one of them. In any case, it fails WP:GNG. XXSNUGGUMSXX ( talk) 03:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- In case my previous comments hadn't already been counted, Redirect to Teenage Dream (Katy Perry album) or Delete since the "reasonably detailed bit again does NOT make up for lack of significant coverage, the commentary from Katy herself seems like a case of WP:MASK. XXSNUGGUMSXX ( talk) 20:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 02:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica 1000 10:30, 22 March 2014 (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.