Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Applause (Bonnie Franklin song)

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 prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Applause (Bonnie Franklin song)

Applause (Bonnie Franklin song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NSONGS: "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." (bold mine) The song is discussed in five four independent references, but it still lacking notability. It never charted, never was covered or used as a sample, or won an award. If its notability, if any, depends in five four references, and it won't go further than an stub-articlem as required at NSONGS, it can be merged elsewhere, but notability is not inherited. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Redundant stub. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 03:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
• Comment if this is deleted, then it should redirect to Applause (musical), as that article still covers this song, so is a viable search term and redirect. -- 76.65.129.3 (talk) 05:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
• Merge a mention of the single to Applause (musical). Not enough for a standalone article and the title is wrong - it isn't a Bonnie Franklin song, it's a Charles Strouse and Lee Adams song. --Michig (talk) 06:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Michig, it has been promised on Talk:Applause (song) that this article "will be slaughtered" at AfD :) and thus prevent a move of the Lady Gaga song per WP:SONGDAB to Talk:Applause (Lady Gaga song), so this question is probably academic in this case, but for future reference, can you point out where in WP:NCM writers should be used not singer. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Common sense suggests that a song should be disambiguated to the originator and for a song from a musical, the writers of the musical seem the obvious way to go as the song is part of their work - this has been discussed here. WP:NCM appears to reflect common usage but guidelines based on consensus reached from discussion should have more weight. The consensus from discussions in this area is not clear, but other songs written by non-performing songwriters are disambiguated to the songwriters (e.g. Walk On By (Burt Bacharach and Hal David song)). --Michig (talk) 06:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Michig, thank you for that full answer. I have no strong feelings; I would not object to a move to a Walk On By (Burt Bacharach and Hal David song) solution if the article is not merged. The only reservation might be that about 7 or 8 of the sources specifically link the song to the singer not the writers and that I cannot see any trace of the song ever having been covered, Franklin seems, proverbially to have nailed it and used it as the springboard to her later career. If this makes any difference. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Merge with Applause (musical)—this subject on its own lacks notability but can be mentioned in the parent article. The Wikipedian Penguin 22:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Why not merge every single to albums? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

You can propose it to WP:SONGS. I have seen editors that say similar proposals like yours "The song charted in 10 countries, but it is not likely to go futher than the current version", if I remember the AFD(s) I saw this I'll post it. Anyway, if you with "every single" really mean "all" songs", which is the benefit of merging All these songs into A Rush of Blood to the Head, it violates Wikipedia:Article length by far. The difference between this article an a normal single is that fails WP:NSONGS. It didn't chart, whichever the reasons why it didn't manage it, it wasn't covered, because it didn't impact like other musical songs, and didn't win an award, if this were a Tony-winner, this AFD wouldn't exist. Per Allah is an akbar's finding, the article neither is covered further. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Allah is an akbar has been struck as a sock. As regards 24th Tony Awards how exactly can a song win a Tony Award? Applause swept the board, this was the best song from it, and it was performed at the awards by Bonnie Franklin, but there is no song award at the Tonys so how can it win one? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

If Allah, whoever he is sock from, was blocked the comment stayed: the references weren't about the song itself. For the Tony, it is not Wikipedia's problem they don't have the category for best song, just Best Score. This is not for the Tony alone, there are other awards in which this song could be nominated, like the Grammy Award for Song of the Year among many other categories. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. I admit that the article could have been better with the 14 sources it has now rather than the 5 when you nominated, but let's be clear this AfD is not about Bonnie Franklin, it is a result of User:George Ho in complete good faith and according to WP:NCM having at 18:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC) nominated Talk:Applause (song) to be, God forbid given the words (Lady Gaga song) in what is a Lady Gaga song. Your interest in nominating this article at 23:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC) is entirely to do with Lady Gaga, and nothing to do with the Tony Awards. If you click the 24th Tony Awards you will see that in the 1970s they didn't have the score award either so it couldn't have won that either. What it could have won was Best Musical, and it did. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Keep as creator but per Google Book print notability - I don't see anything above to say that a single from a musical (and musical soundtrack album) cannot have an article the same as any other single. Has this AfD been notified to WikiProject Musical theatre? Because I actually had a musical theatre editor thank me? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• A song from a musical COULD have an article, but the article would need to have some interesting content beside the fact that the song was released as a single. There needs to be some interesting history, some musical analysis, some discussion of why other people chose to record the song, some information about the critical reception of the song outside of the musical, etc. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. The first reference simply gives the composers' names. The third and fourth say only that Franklin sang the song in the musical. The only reference that addresses the issue of whether the song has notability independent of the musical is the second one. This claims the song was a commercial success. But if it didn't chart, then the song is not notable for this reason either. Allah is an akbar (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC) blocked as sock
• Merge with Applause (musical), adding a mention of the single there, per User:MIchig above. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Enough content has been added so that I no longer object to its retention. However, it is a terrible mess, and none of the citations comply with WP:CITE. Instead of including quotes in the cites, the text should be written clearly. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

That is hopefully something of a temporary issue since an AfD is ongoing and some transparency is required about what the citations really say... In ictu oculi (talk) 04:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - Reception section indicates due weight and notability. Of course, references must be cleaned up another time. --George Ho (talk) 06:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability is established. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
• Keep – WIth the recent additions, I think there's now sufficient content for a separate article, and citations demonstrating enough notability. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
• Keep - As above: notability is clear; article meets relevant policy criteria; minor issues re:citation formatting, are not grounds for deletion. The article was only nominated for deletion by "fandom" editors, who were unhappy with the prospect of the article about the Lady Gaga song being labeled a "Lady Gaga song" rather than just a "song"... The angry fandom in that discussion revealed the vengeful intention to "slaughter" this article. I have to say, the whole thing seems completely averse to the core principles of wikipedia and certainly there was no intention to improve the encyclopedia. I'm glad that out of that darkness there has come some good, and that someone has taken the time to expand this article. --Rushton2010 (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

@Rushton2010: "The article was only nominated for deletion by "fandom" editors", FYI I hate Lady Gaga's songs. "The angry fandom in that discussion revealed the vengeful intention to "slaughter" this article.", so, now that I'm a supposed "fandalist", can you explain why you are not violating the BLP policy with these defamatory content by calling me angry fanatic and vengeful? Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:25, 11 October 2013 (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.