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 the whole shebang. It's been snowing here since day 2. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Writer (song)[edit]

The Writer (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Starry Eyed (Ellie Goulding song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Under the Sheets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lights (Ellie Goulding song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Guns and Horses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A proliferation of WP:FANCRUFT violating WP:NSONGS. NSONGS is crystal clear: While "[s]ongs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts… are probably notable," "[n]otability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article…." The presumption is that individual songs will be treated in an article about the artist or album unless there is something outstanding about the song that warrants treatment in an independent article. Because there's nothing invidually distinctive about these singles that lifts them up from the mine run, nothing warrants a separate article and they should be deleted (or merged into their parent album). - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? None of them pass NSONGS. None of the singles have anything that makes them stand out above the mine run of singles, as NSONGS requires. They're just singles, and the articles simply recite their charting position and fancruft descriptions of the video and song content. Plainly NSONG. Also: "You're" means "you are." You mean "your."- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually they do. WP:NSONG states; "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article [...] Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts [...] 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; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Two things to note, the first being if the song charted it is allowed a page as long as it is not a stub. None of these articles are stubs, all articles contain information notable outside the parent album, such as music videos, reviews, charting, and background information. Myself and 5 other users (so far) are telling you they meet guidelines. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 04:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice, but you're wrong. NSONGS is absolutely crystal clear: songs don't get individual articles unless something about them rises above the norm. Otherwise they are dealt with in the article about their parent article. I already explained that in the nom—if in doubt, re-read it and read NSONGS more carefully. Your position amounts to the claim that what NSONGS gives with one hand it takes away with the other, creating both a rule and an almost unlimited exception. It doesn't. Such a conclusion would be absurd and would defeat the entire point of NSONGS, which is to prevent the proliferation of mindless fancruft like this articles. Nothing about these singles warrants a separate article, so they should be deleted (or merged) and redirected to the parent article. If you disagree, your beef isn't with the nom but the policy—take it up on WP:NSONGS.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thats your view. But you are correct, "NSONGS is absolutely crystal clear" yes it is. It is clear, "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." Meet any of those guidelines as long as its not a stub means it gets a page. As you can clearly see below what i have just stated is the actual guideline, not your interpretation. Im walking away now, have a nice day. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 04:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NSONGS is crystal clear: It gets more so if you don't stop reading at a convenient point. Notability is NOT enough for an independent article—read the part that starts "notability aside." And your argument that any article that isn't a stub is a valid article is absolutely absurd.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What? Are you saying there isn't enough information in these articles? Now that is absurd! The articles are all average size, and once again, GAs have had much less substance. Unless they are stubs, which they are absolutely not, they are fine. How many song articles have you seen anyway? Let me show you some. this and this here. Both of these are about the size of these articles above and they are GAs. Furthermore, you keep going on and on about fancruft, when there appears to be little, if any. Music video sections are part of almost all song articles and they mostly are unreferenced and just give a synopsis of the song's video. I suggest you drop this AfD, as it is snowing like there's no tomorrow. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 22:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NSONGS states "Notability aside, 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." All these songs have enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article. All are already beyond stubs. So NSONGS is crystal clear that these songs are appropriate for articles. Rlendog (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will gladly answer this as well. WP:CANVAS; "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." Appropriate notification; "On the talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who [...] who are known for expertise in the field," <--- Check, we are all music editors and know the guidelines. "Ideally, such notices should be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief—the user can always find out more by clicking on the link to the discussion". Also check. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 04:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like a pretty clear WP:CANVASS problem to me. Prodego talk 04:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why? What part of WP:CANVASS is being violated? Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Based upon what? State what part of the policy, as i explained above, what is allowed according to CANVAS are neutral notifications of users with experience in the field, which is what Ending-start has done. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 04:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And as the guideline says—again, if you bothered to read guidelines before spouting about them instead of cherry-picking the parts that help your case—some motivations for and patterns of notification are not appropriate, most importantly vote stacking: "Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinion." If the users are all inclusionists whom Ending-start happens to know will reliably show up and vote to keep—which is exactly what's happened here, making a pretty good prima facie case for vote stacking—that's a CANVAS violation. Hence the request for Ending-start to explain him/herself.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay you pick and choose the parts you like, continue reading "Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinion. (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement)". Does my userpage imply anything other than that i write music articles? no, doesnt show my opinion on rules or anything similar, only thing it imply is that i am a music editor, which is what this discussion is about, hence why i am here, as stated by CANVAS to invite users "who are known for expertise in the field". Tho i admit he invited too many people but thats a different matter. Bottom line, clear WP:SNOWBALL consensus that article in full meets WP:NSONG. I am done here, have a nice day. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 04:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does your userpage imply anything other than that you write music articles? Yes, it does. It implies that you are strongly in favor of an exceedingly lax interpretation of NSONGS, as your comments here demonstrate. Your user page shows that you have an inexplicable affinity for editing utterly worthless articles that should be deleted from any serious encyclopedia. And the bottom line is far from a SNOWBALL situation (and if you had read SNOWBALL, you would know that it observes that the validity of a SNOW close is, paradoxically, never known until after the debate has run); it appears to be a case where a fifteen year old editor who's been here less than a year notified a bunch of reliable votes for music articles, they showed up and voted as a block, and then a seventeen year old editor claimed a snow close. As Wayne's World might have said (look it up, you're too young to remember) "Yeah, right!" Dude, you can't even write properly (the number of errors on this page alone are frightening: "you're" for "your", "i"), how can you possibly ask to be taken seriously as a contributor? This is is a project for adults and adult subjects, not childish nonsense.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 05:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notifying specific lists of users (particularly a list as long as 11 users) is always a canvassing problem. Prodego talk 04:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I never once said on a message on any user's talkpage stating "Please support me in this." I asked them to take part in this discussion. Yes, I agree I could have just left a message on the songs/albums Wikipedia, but I'd much rather contact them personally. The only reason I left comments in the first place is this discussion had no replies within 2 days of posting, and I felt as if since not a lot of people edit Ellie's articles (seeing from the singles), that no one would stumble upon the deletion tag and come visit. If you check out the "please see" template, and compare it with what I said: "I would appreciate it if you took part in this discussion about the deletion of all of the articles of Ellie Goulding's singles", there's not much difference. I didn't even realize how many people I actually posted on. D: That part is my mistake. But I was not campaigning, votestacking, or stealth canvassing. ℥nding·start 10:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure looks like votestacking to me. You notified users with a specific interest in singles who could be reliably expected to show up and take an anti-NSONGS position (a policy which restricts precisely the category of articles you seem to like). And any doubt is dispelled by the result: one by one, everyone you notified has showed up and voted "speedy keep!" "Strong keep!" "Obviously keep!," all while utterly failing to engage with the relevant policy. Votestacking.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The Writer (song) Speedy Strong Keep, - It is (at least) a fairly well constructed article and is certainly not a stub. It has charted and is sourced. There are unfortunately many music articles in existence that are no where near this good!
  2. Starry Eyed (Ellie Goulding song) Speedy Strong Keep, but - It is certainly notable, but I would like to see an actual source for the release date. The ref in the LEAD currently just goes to what appears to me to be the artist's site landing page. There is no date of Release seen there. It probably did appear there at one time however. There should also be sources shown for the Track listing section.
  3. Under the Sheets Speedy Strong Keep, - Notable song. Some other observations...Please use the 'ref name' or multiref function to also include the sources in the Track listing section. Ref is not needed in the LEAD for 15 Nov as it is in the Release history section.
  4. Lights (Ellie Goulding song) Speedy Strong Keep, - notable, sourced, no stub here either.
  5. Guns and Horses Speedy Strong Keep, - once again no reason to delete this one either. Comment...perhaps the LEAD could be a bit more expanded.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To the Speedy Keep voters: See Wikipedia:Speedy keep#Applicability; Speedy Keep is not a measure of how valuable the article is, but a specific description of procedural violations. I have seen none here (and trust me, I have a good eye for it) and I suggest you amend your votes with strike notation <s>like this</s> to a regular Keep vote or Strong Keep.
I suggest that Lights be amended, with the sections Background, Critical reception and Chart performance rolled into one section or even a one-paragraph section; I have used that technique on numerous articles and it makes articles with short sections look a lot smoother. Anarchangel (talk) 10:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Projection. Notability is irrelevant, as NSONGS explained, and the rest of your comment is simply an elaborate WP:OTHERSTUFF argument: "If we applied NSONGS properly to this article, why, we might have to delete many other articles... but... but... but I like those other articles!" Okay, stipulated that there are a lot of articles that violate Wikipedia policy. Is that a surprise to anyone?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF is an essay, so I can use such argument as much as I wish, and I should, as it is effective. Second, I don't understand what you are saying. You are really not making any sense with the rest of your reply. I like this? I have no clue who she is. I just know enough about WP:NSONGS to know that these are all obviously notable articles. They have all charted and none of them are stubs. A valid argument please? If these were stubs you might have a case. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 22:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you bother to read WP:NSONGS? The bar to clear is not "sourced, npov, notable artist." You can't !vote keep without explaining why if these singles warrant an article, every single doesn't warrant an article—a result which is the upshot of your position and which violates letter, spirit, and purpose of NSONGS.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep reading. It goes on to say, "notability aside..." Notability is a necessary condition for a standalone article, NOT a sufficient one. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What that is saying is firstly that songs ranking on a national chart are usually notable. That means there is a valid argument for creating a standalone article, and in this case I don't think any of the songs can be disputed in that regard. It then goes on to say that if there is not enough information to create an article of reasonable length, then a redirect is more appropriate. Let's take "The Writer" as an example; there is a reasonable length of critical commentary on the work. Now I could be convinced of the argument that it is still worthy of merging into the album; but we have a few songs off the same Album with the same length of commentary, and merging them starts to bloat the album article. So really we are choosing one of two approaches; a longer Album article, or shorter individual articles. I'm in the latter camp FWIW. --Errant (chat!) 13:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the camp that applies NSONGS—its letter and spirit—and eliminates meaningless fancruft. As to the former, you are badly misreading NSONGS. (If you want to tell me that NSONGS has been underenforced for a while and applying it threatens a number of other articles that some of the editors canvassed above really like, I will happily stipulate that point.) What NSONGS says is this: "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." Okay? That's the premise. That's the background assumption. Now: "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts … are probably notable," but, "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article…." And there is the problem, for there is nothing in these articles (or which could be added to these articles) that warrants a standalone article.
What you are failing to recognize is that NSONGS exists for the purpose of limiting the number of articles on individual songs, and you are interpreting it in a way that suggests that it does absolutely nothing, in a way that suggests that a limited exception swallows the rule itself. That's almost WP:GAMETYPE g1, except it doesn't even stick to the letter of the policy! It elevates a misreading of the text over both the text itself and the purpose of the policy.
As to the latter, you say that we have to choose between short singles articles or long album articles, but that's a false dilemma when much of the length is padding: A section describing a song's video? I would argue that if you rip the bloated fancruft out of these articles, there is little added length to the "singles" section of the parent album.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eeek, no. I think we just view this from different perspectives. I see some OK, sourced material that should probably be around somewhere. And my view is that it is best to split it into individual articles. The music video sections account less than a third of most articles (and apart from the description does contain some pertinent factual detail about the filming). Padding? I don't know about that, there isn't anything specifically I would cut. Bottom line; I see some reasonably detailed articles *shrug* -Errant (chat!) 14:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That said, Wikipedia is not well served by our practice of having individual articles on singles. The reviews and release dates could easily be incorporated in a single table in the album article. Most of the production information could be added to the existing tracklist information. The cover images represent a long-standing abuse of WP:NFCC, and the argument that an individual article allows us to incorporate copyrighted information in the infobox is actually an argument against separate articles, not for. The overall intent should be to incorporate as little copyrighted material as possible.—Kww(talk) 17:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You said everything about the policies and barely anything about the articles. This is not the place nor time to discuss polices, with all due respect. I Help, When I Can. [12] 03:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
note someone pointed out earlier... there is scope to significantly increase the information contained in all of these articles. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 22:58, 7 April 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.
Category