Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Lipstick
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Red Lipstick
- Red Lipstick (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)
This article doesn't meet the requirements for notability of songs. The first section is taken from the album booklet itself which is not a secondary source, while the second two sections are based on insignficant mentions in other sources. Any relevant content can be placed in the main album article. Sailodge (talk) 12:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. WTH? The song has enough information to have a separate article. Talk That Shit 13:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. Erm why has this been nominated for deleltion? Notbility guidelines state that if a song which is not a single has charted on a major chart or received an award nomination/award, then it is allowed to remain in mainspace. You should better acquaint yourself with notability guidelines. This is nonsense. AARON• TALK 14:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Sailodge (talk) has only ever made 14 edits to Wikipedia. 5 edits in 2011, 9 edits in 2012. AARON• TALK
- Please read the guideline further. It states, "Notability aside (which is charting or winning a major award), a separate article on a song 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." In this particular article, there is a lack of in-depth coverage in reliable sources, putting aside the information sourced from the booklet, etc. Sailodge (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs" - It's a GA, so it's not a stub. There is enough information. End of. AARON• TALK 14:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Being a good article is totally irrelevant here, anyone can put that little green icon on the article and list it under the category. What we need here is significant coverage in reliable sources, not just regular information from primary sources such as the album itself. Sailodge (talk) 14:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's completely relevant. If the reviewer thought it was not long enough, it wouldn't have been passed. Simple as. And no, no one can just add the green icon without it being through a review. It's completely irrelevant that the reviews came from the album. That's what an album review is, a review of the songs on the album. Where else will reviews come from? AARON• TALK 14:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to have misread. I am referring to the album booklet as a primary source. By the way, I've removed your harsh closing comment as ]
- There is no better source than the album booklet credits to site the credits and personnel. It's direct from the singer. And that wasn't a personal attack in the slightest. I think you need to establish yourself more on here instead of nominating articles for deletion despite you contributing next to nothing. AARON• TALK 14:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to have misread. I am referring to the album booklet as a primary source. By the way, I've removed your harsh closing comment as ]
- Sailodge is wrong with regards to GA status; as can be seen here, the article did, indeed, pass through the GA process. CtP (t • c) 22:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's completely relevant. If the reviewer thought it was not long enough, it wouldn't have been passed. Simple as. And no, no one can just add the green icon without it being through a review. It's completely irrelevant that the reviews came from the album. That's what an album review is, a review of the songs on the album. Where else will reviews come from? AARON• TALK 14:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Being a good article is totally irrelevant here, anyone can put that little green icon on the article and list it under the category. What we need here is significant coverage in reliable sources, not just regular information from primary sources such as the album itself. Sailodge (talk) 14:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs" - It's a GA, so it's not a stub. There is enough information. End of. AARON• TALK 14:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the guideline further. It states, "Notability aside (which is charting or winning a major award), a separate article on a song 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." In this particular article, there is a lack of in-depth coverage in reliable sources, putting aside the information sourced from the booklet, etc. Sailodge (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per precedent. That said (and realizing I might be in the minority), I'm not really a fan of these kinds of articles in general. That is, the song appears to lack any significant coverage in independent reliable sources, thereby failing WP:NSONGS which states "a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article", if we take this literally, than we can easily craft articles for most every song from every album, provided the album's liner notes - and a couple of album reviews - exist. That reasoning kind of goes against the spirit of the guidelines, IMO. I'm not saying liner notes can't be legitimate sources, but they do not factor in establishing notability. Virtually the entire "Recording and production" section of this article is taken from the album's liner notes, and the bulk of that information is repeated in the "Credits and personnel" section. That leaves the "Composition and critical reception" section, which contains trivial/passing mentions of the song within reviews for the album. I just prefer seeing something where the song is the focus - not necessarily the main subject of a write-up, but at least where it's discussed in some depth. As for the song charting, that alone does not warrant a standalone article, as songs routinely get redirected/merged when the article contains little other information - ie, the album's liner notes were not incorporated. Anyway, I'll support keeping this article since that seems to be the result in similar, recent AfDs involving songs by Lady Gaga. Gongshow Talk 07:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 27 September 2012 (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.