Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 September 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2016 September 4
2016 September 6 >

5 September 2016

[edit]
  • Side to Side (song) – Deletion upheld as being right at that time but recreation allowed as the circumstances have changed. There are no strong opinions on name, so current name should be used and a separate discussion can be had on the article talk page if a move is requested. Closing early as the outcome is obvious. – Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Side to Side (song) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Please see the talk page of Side to Side (song) for a more expanded discussion, but generally this topic is now notable enough to warrant an article, and it has already received an understandable consensus that the article should be recreated by users. Here's a snippet of what I said on that talk page:

"This song is notable, as I stated plenty of times before, because it already meets the criteria mentioned in WP:NSONG. It is true that this article does not HAVE to be created, but I have recreated this article not only because it's notable per WP:NSONG, but it's also because I wanted to simply contribute to the encyclopedia in good faith. Let's take a look at the criteria mentioned in WP:NSONG. This song is "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label," as clearly seen through the 20 or so reliable sources in the article that I recreated (this edit). There's actually about 262,000 news results that show up on Google News with the search query "Side to Side Ariana Grande ft. Nicki Minaj" Also, because this song is now a single as of August 30, (Archived Source) it has become more widely known than when the song was only part of the album in May. A music video has been released on August 29 that has since almost received over 35 million streams on YouTube. This song was performed at the 2016 MTV Video Music Awards for the first televised time on August 28. An extremely vital factor of why this article should be recreated is because the single "has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts." (WP:NSONG). The song has charted in Canada, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and was #1 on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles. In fact, just recently the song has charted at #1 on the New Zealand Heatseekers Chart for the week of September 5. (Chart here) Why isn't the topic notable for an article, now that we know the song is recharting in multiple countries because of the single release? I've created some lesser-known songs' articles where there were only about 2-5 charts that the song has charted on, and I know that's enough to warrant a new article (Some articles include You & Me (Marc E. Bassy song), Alarm (Anne-Marie song), Hurts So Good (Astrid S song), among others). —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)"[reply]

The song has since then recharted in many countries, including the UK, Scotland, France, etc. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 14:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sigh. I closed the AfD. I have no particular opinion on the outcome here, but do want to comment on how to put forth a good argument. The nomination above is very hard to read. Partly because it's a big block of text, but also partly because it wanders around in a confusing mix of introducing new data, re-hashing old arguments, and meaningless puffery. I think what you're trying to argue is that since the AfD, new events have happened. Teasing apart the blob of text, I think that boils down to:
  1. This song is now a single as of August 30
  2. A music video has been released on August 29
  3. This song was performed at the 2016 MTV Video Music Awards on August 28.
  4. The song has charted in Canada, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom
  5. It is #1 on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles.
  6. It is #1 on the New Zealand Heatseekers Chart for the week of September 5.
Now, at least, somebody can look at this and quickly see what has changed since the AfD. They may or may not agree that this is enough to change the consensus, but at least you've made their jobs easier. Like I said, I have no opinion on the outcome. I'm just taking advantage of a teachable moment to hopefully improve the quality of DRV nominations. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no comment on merits on the content and simply admin'ing the decision, but will note that a proper title should be decided here if it is restored. If it changes later, so be it, but we have two titles to choose from, Side to Side and Side to Side (song). Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There was already consensus on Talk:Side to Side (song) to move that article to Side to Side (disregarding the notability discussion). Plus, there is no reason to disambiguate since Side to Side currently redirects to Dangerous Woman (album). —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing against you, I'm just trying to make sure all questions are answered here and it was still an open discussion when it came here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • An extremely vital factor of why this article should be recreated? Seriously? It's a disposable pop track. Take a stress pill.

    Anyway, firstly, we should endorse the original closure which was in accordance with the consensus and facts at the time. Things have changed a bit since. Reasonable people might disagree about whether they've changed enough, but the original closure was fine.

    Second, okay, it's verifiably a single now, it's verifiably charted in some fairly obscure charts, it arguably passes NSONGS. It's not outrageously wrong to turn it from a redirect to the album into a stub which links to the album. SomeoneNamedDerek is clearly passionate about the subject. If we work with him and let him write this, then maybe his next article will be one of the redlinks we need filling in. Flora of Europe. Indonesian Art. You never know!

    Thirdly, someone typing "side to side" in the search box is probably not looking for a pop single. They're probably an ESL speaker looking for side-to-side the idiom, which Wikipedia rightly doesn't cover and Wiktionary rightly does at wikt:side-to-side. So what should actually happen is the creation of a disambiguation page at Side to side which includes a soft redirect to Wiktionary or the article about the song. The article about the song does belong at Side to Side (song).

    Hope this is helpful and makes sense; I was interrupted several times while composing it and it may be less coherent than I'd like.—S Marshall T/C 19:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the language that I used in that quoted section; I was simply annoyed that the article was previously AfD'ed even though it passed WP:NSONG. Regarding your third point about disambiguation of Side to Side, I do not think Side to Side should be turned into a disambiguation page at the time being as there is only one "topic" on Wikipedia that covers the query "Side to Side", that being Ariana Grande's song. Perhaps in Side to Side, Template:Wiktionary could be included, but that's really not necessary and probably stretching it. Here's a few examples:
1. Beat It isn't a disambiguation page and leads to Michael Jackson's song, but it does have an entry wikt:beat it on Wiktionary.
2. Appears isn't a disambiguation page and leads to Ayumi Hamasaki's song, but it does have a short entry wikt:appears on Wiktionary.
3. Acércate isn't a disambiguation page and leads to Ivy Queen's song, but it does have a short entry wikt:acércate on Wiktionary.
4. Cherry Pop isn't a disambiguation page and leads to Alexandra Stan's song, but it does have an entry wikt:cherry-pop on Wiktionary.
5. She Wolf isn't a disambiguation page, but it does have an entry wikt:she-wolf on Wiktionary. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Annoyed Overturn. Now that the song is a single and has charted, it looks like the situation has changed since the AFD. I don't get why some users insist on bringing songs by major artists to AFD when sources exist, it just seems like a waste of time. At least clear out all the garage bands and the unsigned "up-and-coming" types first. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, bureaucracy at its best. And {{trout}} the bureaucarts please. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 21:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn This is absolutely waste of time. Some users just need to calm their butt down and do something else here on this encyclopedia, instead of questioning the article for an official single by a major international artist. Do your Google, tons of sources there for this song! Bluesatellite (talk) 23:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have made my case clear in this instance and previous instances - the consensus was to Redirect the song (which had at least 6 different pages/titles). Redirect, not delete (although, we don't need 6 of the same, so 5 of them should be deleted). Two days later, when yet another person came by and tried to edit the redirect, I invoked the original redirect consensus. Which is where I still stand. Enforce the original consensus (which is barely a week old). Revisit the idea in the future. Not tomorrow. Not next week. The future. I vote to keep Side to Side (Ariana Grande song) as a redirect and to delete the rest. And I believe an edit block would be appropriate to prevent someone from trying to write an article in a few days. Kellymoat (talk) 03:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have made my case clear as well - there is no reason why there shouldn't be an article on Ariana Grande's new single. If it meets WP:NSONG, it's enough for an article to be created. This topic meets 2 of the 3 factors listed in WP:NSONG (Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts, has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups). It has a sufficient number of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. Therefore, an article can be created on Side to Side. You haven't given a valid reason why there shouldn't be an article on the topic, or why the topic is not notable enough to warrant an article per WP:NSONG. We should really be worrying about unsigned and unnotable artists, albums, and song pages that currently have an article on Wikipedia and are left unnoticed, as suggested by Andrew Lenahan. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 03:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn @Kellymoat:, why are you targeting this page? A page for this article should be created, it is notable it has begun charting in numerous countries such as Australia and New Zealand, will debut in the coming weeks on the US Billboard Hot 100, a high-profile performance and a music video also add to its notability. Why don't you find other pages that do not adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines on notability? You are specifically targeting this page because you don't want it here. Why is it that a page devoted to There's a Girl a song that did not chart on any music chart, is not well known - evident by the two sentences on the article's page even exist on Wikipedia? Why don't you remove pages that actually fail to meet the guidelines of Wikipedia, without targeting pages that don't actually need to be deleted. I firmly stand by my vote that there should be a page for "Side to Side" by Ariana Grande. It's ridiculous that there is even a discussion taking place over the creation of a page for a song that is quite popular. (43.246.235.19 (talk) 05:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC))[reply]
So, what you are saying is that my opinion doesn't matter? Even though it may not even be my opinion, it is the result of a previous vote. By the way, I hope you know the rules regarding sockpuppets. Kellymoat (talk) 05:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I'm not a sockpuppet, my IP address changes all the time, I am the same user. I'm not saying your opinion doesn't matter, I asked you why you are targeting this page, what is so bad about this page that you want it removed? Like I said, there are pages like the one I mentioned above that need to be looked at not "Side to Side". (43.246.235.19 (talk) 05:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Have you nominated that page for deletion? Of course not. Thank you for bringing it to everyone's attention that you did not nominate it for deletion. Sorry, the song was previously voted on. I voted here. There is nothing more to say on the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellymoat (talk • contribs) 05:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just because I brought attention to it doesn't mean I need to be the one to nominate it for deletion, it was an example to show that a page for "Side to Side" should be created. A brief look at your talk page shows these two messages posted by another user, "Please do something meaningful to Ariana Grande project, not just destroying" and "You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Side to Side." While I still do not understand why you are targeting this page, those comments do give some insight to any user as to why you might be doing this. This is not an article to be targeted, there are other articles that should be looked at.

(43.246.235.19 (talk) 05:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Oh, well, now I have to respond - because you have called into question the validity of my edits based on comments left by others.
It is really quite simple. Both of the comments that you quoted were from the same user, U990467. Who happens to be one of the users that SomeoneNamedDerek requested to come and vote because he knew he would vote in favor of the page. A user who, I may add, is trying to get Ariana Grande nominated for "best of WP". HOWEVER, what you failed to bring up in your failed attempt to discredit me is this - "I didn't disrupt anything. In fact, the opposite is true - you did. "Side to Side" (and the half-dozen pages with variations of the same title) had an open discussion/vote for how to handle it. It was decided that we redirect to the album page." Nor did you bring up this - "Please note, you have had this same conversation with others this morning, all of which told you the same thing that I said. Also, the page(s) in question has been taken back to my version, and has been page protected for a year requiring admin permission to edit."
Sorry, but, even though he was quick to send out a baseless warning (which makes me look bad), admins locked the page to prevent him (and others) from editing the page against consensus. They didn't block me from editing. They didn't revert it to his edit. They locked two of the six Side to Side pages. A third one has since been locked. So, really, this entire discussion that you bought up to question the validity of edits has just added extra weight to the things I have said -- We have already voted on the song. Redirect it to the album.
Kellymoat (talk) 06:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I understand what you're saying but I'm confused over why this page was deleted in the first place. It was clearly visible from the start that the song would become notable, a performance and a music video came out on the same day and the song began rising on digital music store charts around the world. Your initial request on another discussion to redirect the page was too soon, it's like me opening a discussion on the page of Sia's new song (that came out today) and requesting the page's content be deleted and redirected, it's clear that you were way "too soon" in regards to "Side to Side" and that is why the decision should be overturned. (58.164.107.247 (talk) 11:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As such, it is based on factual events of the past. It is not a fortune teller. It cannot predict the future. A non-notable article shouldn't be allowed to exist in hopes that someday it becomes notable. In your example, the Sia song should be deleted because it is not notable. However, I'd like to point out, that you are talking about me as if I am the sole individual making decisions - I am not (and if I was, the issue would have been closed long ago). A consensus vote of 'not notable' on "Side to Side" that occurs under one title variation can easily be applied to another title variation. So while you are accusing me of being too quick to judge on one instance, you are neglecting the previous instances where those decisions were made. If memory serves, my initial vote was to delete. But the consensus was to redirect. Since then, that is all I have been saying "consensus is to redirect".
If it becomes a page, I am going to edit it the same as I edit other pages. Until the consensus to redirect is overturned, I consider it policy to redirect the song.
Kellymoat (talk) 12:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is you were way too soon, you didn't even wait a week when chart entries are released. I know you're not the only one but you're one of those people that has decided to come here to this new discussion so I'm talking to you, I'm not talking to anyone else. It is clear now that the song is notable, there are many news articles discussing the song, the song has begun charting again such as here in Australia and in neighbouring New Zealand so it's notable. "Someday it becomes notable" what are you talking about, it's notable at this current moment, is it not? It's very silly that the page was deleted in the first place and like I said you shouldn't have supported its deletion/redirection if you didn't really know about it (clearly evident by the fact that you're saying it's not notable), this is a prime example of overzealous deletion. (58.164.107.247 (talk) 12:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Just to add on, I hope you realize @Kellymoat: that the song was actually notable enough to warrant an article even before the AfD. Even though the article that was put up for AfD at Side to Side had minimal sources and didn't actually have a charts section, the song had already charted in many countries as part of the album release back in May 2016. The song is beginning to rechart again in many countries due to the release of the single and popularity after being performed at the VMAs. In the recent AfD, you mentioned that "if it becomes the biggest song ever, we can revist the idea of having a page." It doesn't need to be the biggest song ever to have an article created on the subject. No where in WP:NSONG does it say that a song must be #1 in a country for the song to be notable enough for an article to be created. You seem to ignore me throughout this discussion - PLEASE tell me why this song isn't notable NOW (That is, September 6, 2016). You keep on referring back to the AfD, which was on August 29. This deletion review is supposed to look at the changing events after it was marked to be redirected. Why isn't the song notable for an article to be created? Your vote is invalid if you cannot refute that this song is notable now. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 15:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2016_September_5&oldid=1138441632"