Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fading (song)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 no consensus. The deletes had a bit stronger argument based on my understanding of policy, but a legitimate argument can be made for the keep's interpretation notability, and given the not-unreasonable position I don't think I can find a rough consensus to delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 05:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fading (song)

[edit]
Fading (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NSONG states "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article"

The song barely charted and with that aside this article is not needed at all. All the information if covered under Loud (Rihanna album) and other singles sections. The background of this article is bloated with information the related to "Man Down" and, "Cheers" and "California King Bed" so that this can become a GA. This article is absolutely not needed, just because it charted does not mean that it gets a page. Every single reference is related to another article, there is not one reference directly relating to "Fading". - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 03:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/Salted redirect Best Rihanna song but I agree with everything CK has written. Only the two final sentences of the 'Background' section are relevant to the song. Aside from the odd inevitable mention in album reviews and a very low UK charting, the song has not received any coverage in reliable sources. —Andrewstalk 03:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no reason to delete this article. It's charted and has had a considerable amount of reviews. It is no different to "Raining Men (song)", which is of the same length roughly. "Barely charted" is not a reason to delete, it still charted, it doesn't matter where it charted. And it's not bloated with information with the background section. It tells of how Rihanna asked her fans which song they would like to become a single, it's just as relevant and important in this article as it is in Man Down and California King Bed. "Odd inevitable reviews" is also redundant, as that could be said for any song on Loud which didn't become a single. There is literally loads of info on Skin and Complicated, but it hasn't charted, so I can't create an article. All of the reviews relate to Fading, and the background section is about how it nearly became a single (it was actually the only one out of the four choices by Rihanna not to). No one seems to have a problem with Gaga, Mariah and Beyonce non-single articles being created which have barely charted, so this is no excuse. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 10:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. It's just a song that managed to chart in the top 200. Most of the background section has nothing to do with the song and there is no composition info. Pancake (talk) 12:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Saying the Background info has nothing to do with it is basically saying that it has nothing to do with being on the Man Down and CKB articles either. And there is composition info, it's in the critical reception section as part of the reviews, didn't you read it? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 12:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I said most of the background section. All of this might as well be removed: "Recording sessions for Loud began in February 2010,[4] and continued for six months, overlapping with her Last Girl on Earth Tour and filming during her debut feature film Battleship (2012).[5] [...]On March 12, 2011, it was confirmed that fans had selected "California King Bed" as the next single to be released from the album in the United States;[7] while internationally, it served as the fourth single, as it was announced.[8][9] In the United States, however, "Man Down" was sent for radio adds before "California King Bed".[10] And I can't find any composition info. Pancake (talk) 13:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But that info has to do with Rihanna asking fans about the next single, and Fading was one of them, that constitutes as Background info, as it was shortlisted to become a single. And multiple reviewers talk about the songs genre, instrumental and lyrics in the Critical reception section, in fact, nearly every one does. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 13:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article may not be of a reasonable size (if for you reasonable is above 25Kb), but it has enough information to meet WP:GNG andWP:NSONGS. There are hundred of articles on Wikipedia about songs which do not deserve to be here. I do not believe "Fading" is one of them. Out of over 25 professional reviews Loud received, above 80% of them mention this song. It got significant coverage. The community is happy to have pages like this exist when there are reliable sources. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 13:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That about 20% of the album reviewers do not even mention this song seems more telling to me. AIRcorn (talk) 06:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Enough information to be covered outside the album page. Candyo32 21:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - No need to delete a solid article and GA candidate. Toa Nidhiki05 22:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It charted in the UK, passes WP:NSONG. Plus it has enough coverage. My love is love (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - song has impacted a music chart, therefore it is notable. Shouldn't we be focusing on songs that has not impacted any charts and has an article on enWP? Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 23:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep It passes the WP:GNG →Σ ⚑  ☭  07:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Excellent article, plus it passes WP:NSONG easily. Perhaps expand the composition section a bit? Regardless, if Radio (Beyoncé Knowles song), I Miss You (Beyoncé Knowles song) and Ave Maria (Beyoncé Knowles song) all pass WP:GNG and WP:NSONG, then why nominate this article when it offers the exact same? It's a double standard. As My love is love just said, shouldn't we be focused on songs that did not chart and don't pass WP:GNG at all? It seems quite a shame that instead of focusing on the many, many song articles that do not pass a single guideline, people are instead wasting everyone's time and energy nominating articles that clearly meet the guidelines.--mikomango mwa! 12:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It is covered by reliable sources. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 13:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm voting in SUPPORT of this article and you're giving me grief? Um...WTF?--mikomango mwa! 18:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry that wasn't for you lol, didn't realise I had written here, I thought I had written it in the paragraph below in response to AirCorn. It's hard to navigate in this text! Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 18:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Passing WP:NSONGs is irrelevant if the song is not significantly covered by reliable sources. No evidence has been given of this significant coverage here and the references in the article are about the album and only give passing mention to the song itself (usually just a sentence - sometimes in conjunction with another song). Needs to be shown to meet WP:GNG not just claimed.AIRcorn (talk) 06:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    How else do you think there will be reviews? Just because the song is covered by reviews from the album, doesn't make the article any less notable or reliable. Plus, that point is dead because after all, all 90% of songs reviews are derived from the album reviews, I've written enough Rihanna articles to know. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 11:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is that if the song is really notable there will be reviews written just about the song or it will at least receive more mention in the album reviews than I am seeing at the moment. AIRcorn (talk) 11:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    But you can't expect that from a song that hasn't been released as a single. If you look at Peacock (song), the entire Critical reception section is made up from Teenage Dream reviews, and this is a song which peaked at #1 on the US Dance charts without any promotion or single release, so it shows that you don't need to have independent song reviews. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 12:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not familiar at all with Peacock so I can't really comment on that. One of the cornerstones of notability (as I understand it) is that the item in question receives significant coverage in secondary sources. I am sorry but I am just not seeing that with the references provided. AIRcorn (talk) 12:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if you become familiar and look at that section of Peacock, you will see that I have proved my point. And I don't see how they aren't significant secondary sources here, because there is. No different to Raining Men (song). Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 12:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    All that would be proving is that WP:otherstuffexists. I am not going to go on a witch hunt for other Rihanna (or similar) songs to see if they meet my interpretation of the notability guidelines. However, I have looked through the sources given for this article and do not think it does. Show me some reliable, independent and significant coverage of this song and I would be happy for this to be kept. AIRcorn (talk) 13:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how you can get more reliable or independent or significant than NME, The New York Times, Rolling Stone, Entertainment Weekly etc. They all specifically talk about this song. You don't want to look at those two examples because you don't want to see that I have proved you wrong. There are 9 reliable sources which talk about the song as well as it's composition. Why do people focus on deleting notable articles like this one instead of deleting the articles which have about 2 lines worth of info. People's priorities on here are so wrong. This is not a single, which as soon as it becomes one, gains 100% more coverage. This is just a song from Loud which a lot of people commented about, thus making it a notable song. It's just like any other 'song' article on Wikipedia on here which is notable. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 13:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is important to include critical opinion of a song in its article, which can be derived from album reviews, however these do not provide evidence for independent notability. Things like a music video, single release, award nominations and significant media coverage (which is usually secondary to these others) are what make a song notable. Will many people except those who own Loud have heard of this song? I don't think so. —Andrewstalk 21:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But to be honest, you could say that for any singer on here. Will everyone know about Adele's non single articles who don't own 21? Will everyone know Beyonce's non single articles who don't own 4? Will everyone know Gaga's non single articles who don't Born This Way? if we had that attitude, none of these articles, which provide information to the reader, would ever get the light of day. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 21:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't matter much if Keeps are outnumbering, but this is (what I believe) the truth. The topic has received very little independant coverage, and the information looks mergeable to Loud too easily. The album reviews and single selection info especially. Plus, simply charting does not warrant a song article. CK's points are all valid as well. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 10:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete per nominator. — Status {talkcontribs 19:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just say that if this consensus is going to result in a delete, then I'd rather it be re-directed back to Loud, which how it was in the first place (I didn't create the article, I just wrote it), even though there is enough coverage and information with regard to background info, reviews, composition and live performances, with addition of charting. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 11:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Regardless of whether sources have talked about the song by itself or as part of reviews of the whole album, the fact is that numerous sources have deemed the song's importance worthy enough to highlight. Surely this coverage makes the song notable. And surely a certain amount of background information overlapping between the song's article and the album's article is acceptable. And fans of the singer who want to find out particular information about the song, including its composition, its particular background, its status as being shortlisted as a possible single, its critical reception, its live performances, etc. can find it all in this one article. I just think a song with this much coverage (including coverage in major publications such as Rolling Stone and The New York Times), as evidenced by the amount of information included in the article—very little of which, if any, is fluff—is notable. Moisejp (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2011 (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/Fading_(song)&oldid=1140153399"