Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/So Happy I Could Die

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. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 04:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So Happy I Could Die

[edit]
So Happy I Could Die (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)

Track does not meet WP:NSONGS as it received very little third-party coverage independent of its parent album The Fame Monster. The following links give coverage independent of the album, but only talk about the song itself briefly:

WP:NSONGS states If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created. With that being said, this should be redirected to The Fame Monster. As this song only was discussed briefly in album reviews used, this also fails WP:GNG. It is a plausible search term, but doesn't warrant a separate article. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 05:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – You say that the song is covered independently (feebly or not), so it has passed third party coverage. Also per WP:NSONG, this has charted on multiple record charts passing point 1 of the clause. You are correct that coverage of a song per its album review does not pass, but this has other factors associated with it. Its chart prominence. I would have agreed with your redirect had it been some minor South Korean chart, but no. There are 4 major industry sources that validate its prominence. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are indeed third-party references, but fail WP:GNG as they only talk about it briefly. A common mistake made is viewing charts themselves as automatic indicators of notability. Many chart listings only give tracks brief mentions. Prior to the bit on charts, WP:NSONGS states that it is something that might "suggest that a song or single may be notable, though a standalone article should still satisfy the aforementioned criteria", with the "aforementioned criteria" being enough coverage independent of the album to expand beyond a stub. While WP:GNG requires an article to have significant coverage from reliable third-party sources, WP:NSONGS requires that plus coverage outside of album reviews. If the links provided went into more detail about the song and its content and such, that would be a different story. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 05:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Briefly or not, they are taking about it unlike another song "Teeth" from the same EP. Why would they do that? Unless they felt the need to talk about it and here in it passes GNG clearly. Its not being talked about as part of the album review, its talking about it independently. And chart prominence is important whether you accept or not, and that too in bigger markets. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 08:48, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Destructive nomination. The article has numerous reliable secondary sources giving the subject a level of coverage far beyond a passing mention. There's no doubt that the subject passes WP:GNG. WP:ORG says "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." And this is the case. Also, the depth of coverage is not exactly the same as its length. An independent review is almost always more substantial than a WP:routine report, although the routine report is often longer.
    • A question needs to be asked: does the song has merits independent of its album? After going through the sources and the reception section in the article, I find the answer is "yes". --180.172.239.231 (talk) 05:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Destructive" isn't quite the word. Here's what I see when looking into the references used in the article:
  • ref#1: Album liner notes. Not a third-party source and no coverage
  • ref#2: Audio commentary from Gaga herself, a primary source. Primary sources do not add to notability.
  • ref#3: One brief mention from an album review. No significant coverage, and album review coverage doesn't count as notable coverage for songs.
  • ref#4: Independent of the album, but only a brief mention.
  • ref#5: Same answer as ref#3
  • ref#6: Dead link. Even if it worked, music sheets contain no coverage of a song.
  • ref's #7 and #8: Same answers as ref's #3 and #5
  • ref#9: Same answers as ref#4
  • ref's #10 and #11: Same answers as ref's #3, #5, #7, and #8
  • ref#12: Does not seem to display anything on song itself
  • ref#13: One brief listing. No coverage.
  • ref#14: Same answer as ref#12
  • ref#15: One brief listing. No coverage, and not a reliable source.
  • ref#16: Same answer as ref's #12 and #14
  • ref#17: Only shows an incomplete list due to subscription issues, and the bits that can be seen for free mention nothing of the track.
This is why it does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 06:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On the contrary, the combination of ref#3 #5 #7 #10 and #11 addresses the song directly and in detail, which is the definition of "significiant coverage" suggested by WP:GNG.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 06:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Whatever the guideline says, if there is sufficient verifiable and encyclopedic content that becomes too much to include in an article on the EP then a separate article is appropriate, and that seems to be the case here. --Michig (talk) 06:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There really isn't much to say on this track that can't be said in The Fame Monster. Most sources pertain to the EP itself rather than the song, anyway. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 06:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to the album article. As the nominator points out, coverage is only brief and in the context of reviews of the album, therefore WP:NSONG clearly indicates it is not independently notable. Sionk (talk) 11:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have mmissed the part about it being prominent on the record charts also. And it does not have brief notability, a perusing of the sources show they have enough to warrant a separate article. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 17:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The logic of WP:NSONG seems rather strange to me. WP:ANYBIO says that a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians. If the same logic applies to WP:ANYBIO, we will say that person who has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books is not notable at all, since the only coverage of this person occurs in the context of history of that field. Clearly this is not what WP:GNG suggests. WP:GNG states significant coverage need not be the main topic of the source material. In my own view, whether the main topic is the album is not important, while the volume of sourcing is.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 14:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the connection. WP:NSONG is about songs and single music tracks. If a song hasn't been released and promoted as a single, it's unlikely to get major reviews or coverage. Occasionally they do, but not in this case. Sionk (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The reqirement that coverage of a song should be independent of album review is just as coverage of a person independent of history.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing a music album to the entirety of history is ludicrous. That's why Wikipedia has developed different 'alternative' notability criteria ...to deal with specific circumstances. Sionk (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with The Fame Monster. Per NSONGS, coverage of a song that establishes its notability prefers sources that independently discuss the work. The sources here either discuss it as part of its parent album, part of the set list of The Monster Ball Tour, or part of Gaga's complete body of work. Bar the few sources about the Lily Allen thing, but that's a rather weak argument as the only usable info in those articles is that Allen inspired the song. Not exactly what I'd call significant independent coverage. The information about the tour performance is discussed at the Monster Ball article already; I see no reason why the rest can't be slightly condensed and merged into The Fame Monster's article. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thought, I'm going to go with a weak keep due to the charting of the song in Sweden, a major music market which is not included at Lady Gaga discography. I can be persuaded otherwise, since there's considerable overlap with material that could easily be used at The Fame Monster which still makes this article seem almost redundant. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basically, this page is a WP:CFORK, Chase. Sweden's charts could easily be added to her discography page. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral comment/warning IndianBio, stop changing the heading level like you did twice on this nomination. I don't know if it's accidental or not, but AfD headings should remain at 3 like all other nominations. Nate • (chatter) 20:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Mrschimpf: I swear I did not know that the header was changed. It must be Advisor.js acting funny. :( —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:54, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. per WP:NSONG, as not a great deal needs to be said about the song, as not a great deal has been said about the song. This is an encyclopedia, not a directory of songs. See, for comparison, the topic of song lyrics. --Bejnar (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ditto Bejnar. TheFrontDeskMust (talk) 22:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Per WP:NSONG and there will be no consensus for a merge or redirect. Noteswork (talk) 04:52, 12 August 2014 (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/So_Happy_I_Could_Die&oldid=1140405993"