Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wipe Your Eyes

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. JohnCD (talk) 01:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wipe Your Eyes

Wipe Your Eyes (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)

The topic lacks indepth coverage from secondary sources. If this is the standard for articles about songs then Wikipedia will have an article for every single track that appeared on an album in the past 10 years. Should be deleted as a failure of

WP:NSONGS. Till 23:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Maybe the article is not enough for being GA nominated, but it's certainly does satisfy both the criteria for being a body itself. — Tomíca(T2ME) 10:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does it satisfy both criteria??? It has 1 small paragraph derived from secondary sources. I didn't find anything in the sources that was significant coverage. Till 11:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seemingly fails the GNG, as it has received only snippets of coverage. It didn't chart, it hasn't been nominated for any awards, there's no reason to think this is any more than just another album track. Not every song needs its own article. J Milburn (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What? It didn't chart? Have you even looked at the article. Number 80 on the US Billboard Hot 100 and 18 on the South Korea Singles Chart (only based on digital download). The thing that doesn't have information enough (yet) it doesn't me it's not gonna be expanded. — Tomíca(T2ME) 17:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah... J Milburn... it appears you never even looked at the article and was just basing your !vote off of other AFDs you have taken part in.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 17:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, you're right. I did look at the article, as I came here from GAC via the article. I've no idea how I made that mistake. J Milburn (talk) 08:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless, charting is not the issue, the concern here is a lack of significant coverage from secondary sources. Till 08:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In my opinion the SNG does not trump the GNG, so I usually just look for coverage in sources. The best one presented here is this one. It is not a strong source to base notability on. However the song charted quite high in South Korea. The SNG could be used to presume that this song has significant coverage in South Korea. If South Korean sources, English or otherwise, can be produced then I would be happy to keep this, otherwise I think that according to the GNG it fails the notability guidelines. AIRcorn (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't find any decent sources on the internet so here is my analysis of the 15 sources in the article.
  1. Included in a list. No coverage.
  2. No mention of "Wipe Your Eyes"
  3. No mention of "Wipe Your Eyes"
  4. YouTube video, not independent of the subject
  5. Music retailer, no coverage.
  6. Inlay cover of the album, not independent of the subject
  7. Idolator is not a reliable source, it provides no editorial policy nor are we given a description of the author's credentials.
  8. This appears to be a user-submitted review from an unknown website. Not reliable.
  9. Gets a trivial mention as part of the album ('There are a few things here that don't fit, like the distracting background vocals on "Tickets" and the jarring nonsensical sounds in the opening and background of "Wipe Your Eyes"')
  10. The topic received one sentence from this source. Not significant coverage.
  11. Gets a trivial mention as part of the album ("‘Beautiful Goodbye’, ‘Love Somebody’ and ‘Wipe Your Eyes’ are also sure to be fan favorites")
  12. Verifies a chart position, no significant coverage.
  13. Verifies a chart position, no significant coverage.
  14. Verifies a chart position, no significant coverage.
  15. Verifies a chart position, no significant coverage.
Overall, the article has not received the indepth coverage from reliable sources that is required for
WP:NSONGS also states that even if the song charts, the topic should not have a standalone article when there is not enough material to justify such. In this case, there is only one small paragraph of significance, excluding the useless background section and the paragraph that is sourced by album notes. That is not enough to justify a separate article. Till 05:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
t • c) 08:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article doesn't have enough information to be nominated for GA in my opinion, BUT this doesn't need to be deleted at all. It is NOT a failure of
    WP:NSONGS. WP:NSONGS states, "songs and singles may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria: has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts". "Wipe Your Eyes" charted at number 80 on the Billboard Hot 100 and 18 on South Korea's Gaon Chart. WPGNG states "notability guidelines do not limit content within an article", so to claim this is short makes no sense, seeing that many other articles are as short as this one. I'm not so sure about the sources, but some research can clearly expand and better up this article. - Saulo Talk to Me 04:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I agree it meets
WP:GNG. BTW you missed bolding the "may" in the above quote. AIRcorn (talk) 11:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Oh yes, sorry. I still vote keep per
WP:GNG if it had enough coverage from reputable sources. - Saulo Talk to Me 18:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:NSONG says that even if the song charts, you shouldn't write the article if it will be short. In this case, there is 1 irrelevant background paragraph, 1 paragraph containing material from the actual album (not secondary) and 1 paragraph consisting of trivial mentions and snippets from album reviews. I did not find any substantial coverage outside the article or inside the sources of the article. Wikipedia is a text-based communication site, if no third party sources of a topic exist then the topic in question should not have its own article. Till 10:30, 12 March 2013 (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/Wipe_Your_Eyes&oldid=1144349810"