Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Choose Your Battles

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 14:40, 18 February 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Choose Your Battles

[edit]
Choose Your Battles (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)

Article is not notable per WP:NSONGS (Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability.): its only sourcing—reviews, etc.—is as part of the album Prism, and the South Korean charting is likewise non-notable. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above reasons XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The song was specifically reviewed in the source materials separate from other cuts off the album. marginal call, but adequate for me. Korean charting worth noting, seems US-centric to say it's non-notable just because it isn't in the USA. Content extensive enough to be merged to main article if deletion favored, should not see all this person's work go to waste. Montanabw(talk) 16:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't so much of based on location as it is that particular chart not being one that makes headlines or anything. I'm sure the creator put in lots of effort, and such effort can definitely go onto Katy Perry Wikia. Merge is also a fine choice. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Montanabw, can you please give me an example of sources where this song is "reviewed in the source materials separate from other cuts off the album"? I'm trying to figure out where you're putting the dividing line. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where the song is specifically discussed by name, even if within an overall album review. Seldom do you see much else, really, There were several sources within the article that clearly cited comments made about that specific song. To insist that a song must always be separately reviewed to be notable is rather absurd, almost all popular music reviews are of albums, and within the review, the author will note the particularly good/bad/interesting cuts off the album. You only get to individual songs being reviewed by themselves when they become grammy nominees or something, which is more than NSONGS requires. Montanabw(talk) 00:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Since almost every song nowadays charts on the South Korean chart, I'm not going to make that the reason for keeping it. Instead I believe that nowadays almost every singer discusses each one of their songs in depth, revealing some information regarding their development and production process. This is best included in individual articles, and keeping them in the main album article will make it bloated. The fact that the song charted somewhere is just the icing on the cake and even more reason to make an individual article. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would probably be better to include such information on sites like Katy Perry Wikia. The simple fact is that this is one of many songs that does not exactly have enough significance to be kept. It would definitely be excessive to have all that info in the album article, but it is also excessive to have articles for every song on an album. One must ask: How did it impact the artist's career? How did it impact society?? How did it impact the music industry??? In this case, the answer to all three of those questions is: it has had little to no impact. Just stick to having articles that have received significant attention/promotion (which generally is just singles and promotional singles). XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Plenty of information, certainly enough for a deluxe edition article. As long as there is enough information to make an reasonable length article, one can be created.--Giacobbe talk 22:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the whole point of notability guidelines is that "enough information" is not sufficient; the subject must be notable. Your argument goes against a fundamental guideline of Wikipedia. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per the comments above. — Tomíca(T2ME) 22:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't the amount of information available or article length. The problem is lack of significance. The song fails WP:NSONGS. It simply is too soon to have this as an article since it hasn't been released as a single or promotional single or received any significant attention. Merge is fine as well, but keeping would not be a wise decision in accordance with WP:NSONGS. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:NSONGS: "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." "Choose Your Battles" has plenty of quality source information and has a reasonable length, which would follow and meet the guidelines.--Giacobbe talk 22:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It does have a fair amount of information, but as @BlueMoonset: mentioned..... Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And as it later states, notability aside, as long as there is enough information, and article can be created.--Giacobbe talk 22:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notability level trumps over information amount available, though. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That would be WP:OR, since nowhere in the guidelines does it say that. Either way, the guidelines state that an article can be created if either A)It has achieved notability OR B) There is enough information.--Giacobbe talk 22:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To quote @BlueMoonset:, "what it comes down to here, as it does with all songs (in this case), is what makes a song notable by itself: Is it very popular, is it unusual in a way that makes a wide number of people talk about it especially, do a large number of artists cover it, and so on. WP:NSONG is very specific about song notability. By the very nature of things, not every song on an album is going to be notable, regardless of how famous the artist is, or how famous the album is. The whole idea of notability is that it isn't inheritable. I have seen song articles become GAs and then be deleted entirely a couple of weeks later: an article can be quite well written and sourced, and have a bunch of information, yet be about someone or something that simply isn't notable by Wikipedia standards. Having read both "Double Rainbow" and "Choose Your Dreams", I don't see that either song is notable, but I realize that my view, though backed up by the WP:NSONG criteria, may not prevail." XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that (CA)Giacobbe doesn't understand what what Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album means. What it's saying is that if the subject of an article is notable (in this case a song), it's only appropriate to write a standalone article when there's enough material to make it worthwhile. However, if the subject isn't notable, then it doesn't matter what kind of material is available. Indeed, that's the problem with all of the Keep arguments I've seen in this discussion: none of them properly address the fact that this song fails the basic tests of NSONG, and is therefore not notable. It doesn't matter how many sources you scrape up, if none of them (or even all of them combined) are adequate to establish notability. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The problem isn't the amount of information available or article length. The problem is lack of significance" has got to be the most contradictory statement here. Actually laughable. If it has enough information and is a good length, then significance is achieved.  — ₳aron 18:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not sure whether my nominating this is sufficient, or whether I should specify here, too. I note that none of the arguments raised by people wanting to Keep addresses notability or WP:NSONG directly (except possibly Montanabw's, and not very convincingly); indeed, some of them seem to be arguing that it's irrelevant as long as you can write a long enough article, which vitiates the very notion of notability. This article clearly fails to meet the notability guidelines for song articles. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the consensus here seems to be to keep the article.--Giacobbe talk 23:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. As it says on WP:AFD, Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself. NSONGS is a primary guideline for notability (and lack thereof in this case), and I haven't yet seen an effective marshaling of justification and evidence based on it to support a Keep argument. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since when did evidence OR consensus have the least thing to do with decision-making on wikipedia? :-P As far as I can tell, it's whoever screams the loudest for the longest that gets their way! "Four legs good, two legs baaaaad!. Not saying anyone here is doing that but I imagine that to believe that we actually have either process operating is to indeed be a dreamer. Montanabw(talk) 00:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While four simple legs might hold more than two simple legs, there is also "one brick outweighs a pile of feathers". In this case, the bricks are "delete" and the feathers are "keep". XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It charted, it's received coverage. There's really nothing you can do as it charted. We inhabit a digital world now, which means non-singles regularly chart now and more emphasis is placed on non-singles. This isn't the 90s anymore. This is supposed to be encyclopaedia, it's about time it starting being treated as a proper one. Saying that album reviews which talk about non-singles are not good enough is redundant too, where else are you meant to get info from? Does it make a difference? No. It's still a critic giving their opinion, it shouldn't matter which form it comes in. We don't live in a singles only society anymore, this is the digital era. People allow non-singles to chart on the Hot 100 now, so it shouldn't be any different on here. Also, saying that the South Korea chart isn't notable enough it a load of bullshit. It's a countries national chart. We don't say that one chart is more important than the other. Believe it or not, the music industry does not purely revolve about the United States and Billboard. What on earth is Wikipedia coming to. There used to be such a great sense of community and now it's just a battle ground of people trying to denounce the hard works of others who are tying to make this site as encyclopaedic as possible.  — ₳aron 13:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was disappointed to see that this post was the result of WP:CANVASS (see User talk:Calvin999#Notice), but more that it completely ignores WP:NSONG in favor of the discredited "there's really nothing you can do as it charted" claim, which the 2013 revision to NSONG explicitly contradicts. As the notability guidelines make clear, only if other things about the song are true does the potential of charting come into it, and in the case of South Korea, the way the singles chart is structured means it should be used with care, since virtually every song from every popular album is going to show up on that chart the week it drops, which clearly makes the chart questionable when it comes to discerning between notable and non-notable tracks on such albums. Every song that an artist releases is not notable; that isn't how notability works on Wikipedia. A majority simply won't be—it's the nature of songs that this is so—which means the majority shouldn't be getting articles. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How? Leona Lewis's "Lovebird" was a single but only charted in one country, South Korea.. Should that be deleted? And @BlueMoonset: my verdict would have been the same regardless. No one asked me to vote to keep, actually, so it's not canvassing. It's try, if a song charts, it's notable. Obviously, there needs to be a fair amount of info to go with it, and I believe this article has. Everyone song has the potential to chart in every country, as I said, we live in the digital era now. Where do you expect non-singles to be reviewed? It is an invalid argument to say that album reviews which talk about non-singles are not notable. It is also invalid to that say that South Korea chart is not notable.  — ₳aron 18:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, charting doesn't automatically equate notability. One chart alone isn't enough. It would need at least several significant chartings (regardless of location) to be notable..... XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case then, "By the Grace of God" won't be deleted. It has charted in several charts; had coverage in various websites and magazines and was critically commented a lot. prism △ 11:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't say anywhere that you need more than one chart. You are clutching at straws. You only need one chart.  — ₳aron 12:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Prism:, "By the Grace of God" definitely has more notability than the other non-singles/non-promo singles on the album, but it still has questionable notability. Also, "four" is less than "several". XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 13:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you are so interested in applying this non-notability theory on songs, then I invite you to nominate an entire truck-load of song articles on Wikipedia. Almost every song nowadays, non-single or promo, is able to chart on some or the other chart, and Wikipedia is not concerned with just US Billboard charts. Like I said earlier, there is a lot people share about a song they have contributed to and stuffing that into an album article will take the focus off the album and more onto a song. (These are 1+1 articles in which there is some discussion regarding the song) Considering this, and the fact that the song has indeed charted, then what's wrong with having an article on it? Will Wikipedia collapse really? People really interested in knowing about this song and how it came about, including the really interesting fact that Perry took five months to write it, will really appreciate to read an article of it and learn different views regarding it, which may not be necessarily included the album article. Hence I rest my case --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@WonderBoy1998:, as I mentioned, location of chartings is not the concern. If a song only charted in the United States or Canada for example without charting anywhere else, it also wouldn't exactly be notable. What it would need is at least several significant chartings and headlines. One chart alone isn't very significant. Viral Internet videos of songs such as "What What (In The Butt)" or "Harlem Shake" on the other hand don't need chartings, nor do other Internet memes. The info for this track would certainly be welcomed at Katy Perry Wikia, where I strongly recommend it be added to since it fails WP:NSONGS XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am so glad that you repeated the comment you're making everytime, that national charts don't matter and that the article is welcome at Katy Perry Wikia. I didn't understand the first time, I'm sure. I am grateful. Now please devote some time in editing and improving articles --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hate to have to say this, but it most certainly is not "fine" that this fails WP:NSONGS XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please stop stalking every user's comment and spamming it with your opinion? This is a joined project where everybody can give its opinion! You give yours, Everyking his, so just stop the drama. — Tomíca(T2ME) 10:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. It's like you come to Wikipedia just to comment on this page, try some editing too, maybe that's the main point of Wikipedia, I think. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry- I come to the site for more than just this page, and often edit other articles..... Also, I wasn't exactly "spamming" or "stalking"..... XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I have the feeling that you literally sleep on this page, commenting and spamming right after a user says "Keep". Oh, and you really want to talk about your edits? Should I show you how many wrong writer/producer infoboxes you changed and I have to come everytime to repair them? — Tomíca(T2ME) 17:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quick WikiRedactor! Be prepared! --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or redirect to Prism (Katy Perry album) – Charting alone (in this case, at a rather low position on a download chart) does not necessarily establish notability (WP:NSONGS), and other than a couple of critics' comments taken from reviews of Prism and the like there isn't much coverage from other non-trivial published works present in the article. Holiday56 (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter if it charts at 1 or 100, on the Hot 100 or the Jazz Songs chart, a chart position is a chart position and a chart is a chart. So that point is irrelevant. And where do you expect critic info to come from apart from album reviews. So, I assume that album reviews which talk about a single can't be included in a single-released article then? Only singles reviews? People are bending to the rules to suit them. We don't distinguish between charts or sort them into "your opinion of importance." I'm pretty sure that people from South Korea would contest your argument.  — ₳aron 17:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not "bending to the rules" to suit my opinion. WP:NSONGS is an established community notability guideline, and one point clearly reads: "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created." 7 of just 14 sources in this article originate from album reviews, 2 come from liner notes and the iTunes page for the album, and 3 more sources discuss the album's recording without mentioning the song itself. The Idolator source gives one short tidbit that Perry wrote the song in 5 months, and that itself is actually taken from one of her tweets, so that doesn't qualify as an independent source. Even if I hadn't factored the chart position it reached and the nature of the chart itself into my argument, nonetheless the point "Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts." is clearly delineated as a factor that suggests "that a song or single may be notable (not "is notable"), though a standalone article should still satisfy the aforementioned criteria." I have no qualms with single articles containing sources from album reviews, but the notability of those articles is usually established by the presence of independent sources on other information (chart positions/certifications, commercial performance, music videos/promotion, accolades and awards, etc.) In this case, I feel that the article needs more of these independent, published sources to justify its notability. Holiday56 (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And all of what you just said is why WP:NSONGS is so flawed. Where else do you get critic reviews of songs from? Album reviews, which now in this era are usually track by track. If anything, track by track album reviews are basically individual song reviews. The quote about charting is also flawed, because South Korea is a country with a national chart. I think South Koreans would disagree with you if you said that their chart is not significant. If someone such as Idolator reports and comments on her Tweets about the song, which come form her official Twitter account, then yes that is a reliable source of information, as a reliable source is reporting on it. Please, your whole paragraph is non-sensical and flawed. As I said before, we live in the digital era and there is such a wealth of information that putting all this info into the album article would result in Prism being too long, and then people would complain about that, too.  — ₳aron 17:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whether WP:NSONGS is flawed or not, one cannot just dismiss it like that. Also, the charting not being seen as notable has nothing to do with geographic location. Because it definitely would be excessive to add all of this track's info to the album page, it would be condensed and incorporated into the Prism article. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Choose_Your_Battles&oldid=1140116440"