Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Truth (Gwen Stefani song)

Add links
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 "Asking 4 It" and "Rare", redirect "Truth" to album article. Next time, can

flyer 05:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Truth (Gwen Stefani song)

Truth (Gwen Stefani 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)

Also nominated:

Asking 4 It (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rare (Gwen Stefani song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These articles fail

WP:NSONG
on the grounds that their subjects have not been been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. A footnote on NSONG adds that The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the song/single, its musician/band or of its publication, price listings and other non-substantive detail treatment.

These articles mostly rely on passing mentions of their subjects (the songs) in interviews, news pieces, or reviews pertaining to

Chase (talk | contributions) 20:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
talk) 20:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
  • I guess I can see where you're going with "Truth", but "Asking 4 It" and "Rare" both have various independent publications regarding the song, that I will be listing below, not to mention are already included in the respective articles:
Asking 4 It
  1. "Fetty Wap slated to be only guest artist on Gwen Stefani's album"
  2. "Gwen Stefani Says Her Kids Are Excited for Fetty Wap Collab"
  3. "Gwen Stefani – Asking 4 It (ft. Fetty Wap) Review"
Rare
  1. "Blake Shelton Reveals His Favorite Songs Off Stefani's New Album – Find Out What It Is!"
  2. "Blake Shelton Reveals His Favorite Song On Gwen Stefani's New Album; Is 'Rare' About Him?"
  3. "New Gwen Stefani lyrics suggest Miranda Lambert left Blake Shelton"
Like I said, I see where you're going with "Truth", but not with "Asking 4 It" and "Rare". Carbrera (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1, 2, and 3 fail this part of NSONG: This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work. 4 does not appear to be a reliable source. (The author credited as an email address, and a Gmail one at that?) That leaves 5, which only confirms that the song indeed exists, and 6, which is not substantial enough to form the crux of an encyclopedia article. And again, NSONG requires having been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label.

    I think the important question is this: if all three of these song articles were to be deleted, would the reader lose any substantial amount of information that is not already present at
    Chase (talk | contributions) 21:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • That's where being selective and including only the most pertinent information in the album articles comes in. No one's suggesting that the song articles be copy/pasted verbatim into the album article. That would cause undue weight to be given to the songs, as you noted.

    And the problem with the second source is that it is based on the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties (in this case, the apparent subject of the song and the artist's boyfriend) advertis[ing] or speak[ing] about the work. NSONG looks to find that reporters, critics, and scholars have found the song worthy of significant discussion without prompting from interviews or tweets by those involved.
    Chase (talk | contributions) 01:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I understand it's WP:NSONG policy for notability but who ever expected media outlets to write articles out of the blue on (non-single) album tracks? They usually don't. And those songs aren't supposed to have articles.
    Chase (talk | contributions) 22:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Your rationale was I don't see why mentions of their content in articles about the parent album are not good enough. I explained to you why.
    Chase (talk | contributions) 15:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep This is quite the discussion you got going on here. With that being said, I can see both sides in this discussion. Let me start by saying that despite my vote on "Asking 4 it", as I passed it as a GA article, with the others will be fair. Even singles sometimes just have two-three non-album reviews and if there is any relevant information is already on the album. I'm currently in a similar discussion. All in all, Delete "Truth" keep the others. Note: After this discussion is closed I will take a second look at the sources on "Asking for it", regarding non-reliability. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also starting to think I could really expand "Truth" and dig deep for some standalone information and articles. I'll try my absolute best to make this happen. Like Ss112 noted, it is unreasonable to expect media to write an entire article based off of one song, yet there are thousands of Wikipedia GA entries based upon non-single songs. Stay tuned. Carbrera (talk) 06:20, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • it is unreasonable to expect media to write an entire article based off of one song, yet there are thousands of Wikipedia GA entries based upon non-single songs. – No, it's really not. There are plenty of songs that have significant individual coverage. But the vast majority of songs are not supposed to have articles per
    Chase (talk | contributions) 22:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • It happens occasionally. Our notability guidelines mean that most non-singles (and many singles, for that matter) should not have articles.
    Chase (talk | contributions) 23:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Why do
    Lemonade still have articles and are not being nominated for deletion? Because they charted on several countries' charts? Is that the deciding factor? Is that the significant independent coverage they need? I mean, there's plenty less notable material on Wikipedia; those songs from Lemonade barely have anything else besides outdated chart links on them. Like, I'm pretty sure we're all familiar with the notability guidelines here, so it's now coming down to "there's not enough material on them" versus "yes, there is". Ss112 13:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • you certainly should be thinking a bunch of other articles need to be deleted too. OK? I do. You can't expect me to round up every article of the sort. I've said clearly that articles like the ones nominated here should not exist.

    it still being at just three against one, I'm thinking this isn't going to gain enough votes to reach a consensus. Consensus is not based on vote-counting; it's based on the quality of arguments and how they adhere to policies and guidelines, which have mostly been ignored by the keep !votes. Hopefully an administrator will take note of that and relist this relatively untouched discussion if few others comment in the next few days.
    Chase (talk | contributions) 05:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Chase, I still don't understand under what qualifications this policy applies to. Over half of Madonna's latest release has articles for the tracks, and all of them are GA, despite only three international singles and one Italian single being released. So the remaining five are still articles, what's up with that? Plus I highly doubt there's an independent review on each song from multiple sources? I know you're going to quote me on this, but if the article is written well and it's a GA, what's the major problem? Carbrera (talk) 02:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to nominate those Madonna articles for deletion?
Chase (talk | contributions) 06:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Chase has a point guys, being a good article does not exempt it from being steam rolled through AFD. I just redirected a Madonna GA article, "
WP:NSONGS. Simple —IB [ Poke ] 12:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, Chase definitely does have a point. However, "Asking 4 It" and "Rare" both have reliable sources, especially "Rare", which was all over a few television series (sources for this are in the article) this past March. And I have to admit, "Asking 4 It" also includes some really good information with trustworthy sources (I personally think it's one of my best works); if you must do something, take a look at "Truth", but I still don't see the problems with the other two. (On a side note, Chase, I don't understand why you put a "not in citation given" notice when it states clearly in the citation what was included.) Carbrera (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And Chase, you keep arguing that they're not notable whereas Carbrera and I are saying they are, then you tear apart all the sources listed and claim all we're doing are relying on WAX arguments. No. It's not "period", end of story just because you say so. The fact is, they are rated as good articles and I think they deserve more of a discussion than being turned into redirects (and just because "I'm a Sinner" hasn't had somebody saying anything about it yet, doesn't mean they won't). Let's leave the final say in determining their notability up to an administrator or less concerned party to determine, not anybody who's commented here yet. Ss112 07:06, 9 June 2016 (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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Truth_(Gwen_Stefani_song)&oldid=1141937508"