Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Purge

1 April 2025

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

This page is about serious nominations. For April Fool's joke nominations, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/April Fools' Day 2025.
< March 31 April 02 >

Purge server cache

Youssef Ahmed

[edit]
Youssef Ahmed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability guidelines for sportsperson. The only coverage of this person was regarding their recent unfortunate death which seems to be the reason for the creation of this article, which was made very recently and after their death. Therefore, the only potential article would be one focused on their death which also fails notability with lack of signiificant coverage and no lasting effects.

The article also seems to have been created by someone that knew the person personally. The article talks about unreferenced personal touches such as their career ambitions and hobbies. Half the sources are links to Facebook posts. SJD Willoughby (talk) 01:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Intro (End of the World)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Intro (End of the World) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSONG, as it is not the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label ... Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:46, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the last discussion. Maxwell Smart123321 20:44, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which argument(s) from the last? That discussion had a series of votes with absolutely no basis in policy (including that the song is charting well despite being an introductory track, that the article's author put lots of effort into the article, that it's charting in Asia) and one vote claiming that it meets GNG, which was unsubstantiated and the article's sourcing (as well as a search online) shows is clearly not the case. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Having peaked in the top ten and top five in numerous Asian countries, it's the most notable album track from Eternal Sunshine. The article is incredibly detailed and includes coverage such as the song's live performance video on its own. An extended version will be included on the deluxe and be the subject of more commentary as well. Flabshoe1 (talk) 00:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where it charted doesn't have anything to do with the notability guidelines for a song. A single report from Rolling Stone that a live version of the song was released online does not count as independent non-trivial coverage of the song in multiple sources. Future commentary can't be accounted for; this is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eternal Sunshine (album). Any and all arguments for wanting to keep this article I feel completely misrepresent WP:NSONG, and I believe that the first deletion discussion wanting to keep this article was a blatant violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL, as in building an article around coverage that will later exist for no reason that is more detailed than a simple "trust me bro". It's been 11 months since that discussion, and the coverage that was so highly anticipated has not come to fruition.
NSONG clearly states that a song charting or being certified might be an indicator that it is notable, but it usually needs to work with something alongside it. That could obviously be articles exclusively about the song that discuss it in detail (not "this song was performed live today for the first time!" or "here's an interview discussing it's creation!"), or rankings of the best songs in a certain category (e.g. best songs released in a year). Hell, in most circumstances I'd say that a song placing in a ranking of a band discography can be acceptable to prove notability if there's some meat to it. Even run-of-the-mill coverage like what I just mentioned could be useful if there's meat to it. But this song doesn't have any of that. It is near entirely pieced together by run-of-the-mill coverage such as the aforementioned Rolling Stone piece that says a version of the song was released online but not much more, or in articles specifically talking about the album in the context of a review or a track-by-track analysis. Sure, this is worthwhile information detailing the song... in the context of the album. In-fact, NSONG makes it very clear that "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability". I do understand that the article is reasonably detailed and I commemorate the authors work here to make it a GA, but notability isn't met here and I think it should redirect to Eternal Sunshine (album). λ NegativeMP1 20:42, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@NegativeMP1, see the relisting comment ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:35, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"but notability isn't met here and I think it should redirect to Eternal Sunshine (album)." But there, hopefully it is more clear now.
Redirect/merge I find that NegativeMP1 explains my argument better than I can. My thoughts on this article's notability remain the same as it did during the previous AfD. This view of charts as an indicator of notability is heavily misunderstood. Just because an album track charted higher than the rest does not guarantee it's notable; SIGCOV outside of album reviews does. A lot of tracks that appeared in two charts - or hell, none at all - are notable by WP:GNG standards (Joni (song) as an example, or many of the articles on Category:Unreleased songs). Conversely, many songs that did chart in a lot of countries are not. And re. "this is detailed enough to have its own article," (1) the details about the song here, such as the series of Eternal Sunshine surprise performances, can easily be covered in the album article. (2) a lot of incredibly detailed articles, many of which were of FA-quality, were merged into their parent articles. Elias 🦗🐜 [Chat, they chattin', they chat] 01:28, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PSA, see the relisting comment ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:35, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Those calling for a Redirect or Merge, please specify the target. Don't assume the closer will guess you meant Eternal Sunshine (album) or any other target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:13, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect the track to its parent album.
MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from the creator: This is my first time participating in an AFD, please tell me if I did something wrong. The last AFD for this article was one of the most impactful reality checks for me as a Wikipedian editor. Before that, I used to create and expand Taylor Swift's deep cuts and assumed that it wouldn't hurt to create such articles if they have decent coverage or are relatively successful commercially. It was the same for this article, but compared to Swift's, most of which still exists to this day, Grande's song have less substantial coverage nor have article sources pertaining to it.
Now, I agree with all arguments for this AFD that the article is warranted for deletion, and I completely understand with the intentions of redirecting it to its parent album. However, now that the extended version was released, please give me a chance to expand this article more thoroughly up until next week for the sake of saving this, as new/upcoming articles concerning the album's deluxe edition will hopefully focus more to this track. Gained (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage of the album is not sufficient to establish notability for this song. It would have to be new coverage of the song itself. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GNG. Given chart history, coverage in reliable sources, and amount of content in the article, I think this is a helpful fork from the parent article. I'd prefer to see this Good article expanded and improved, not deleted. An extended version of the song was just released today, so some updating is in order. I've shared a few very recent sources on the article's talk page and added links to the Brighter Days Ahead deluxe edition and the article about the accompanying short film of the same name (which uses the song). ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:40, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tbhotch to be clear, you favor redirecting to Eternal Sunshine (album)? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:30, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is mere bureaucracy to believe anything else. (CC) Tbhotch™ 18:42, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course, but the relisting comment asked for specificity. Just hoping to wrap this up. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tbhotch I recommend taking a deeper dive than just skimming article titles. An extended version of the song was released this week in a deluxe edition and short film, so there's another wave of press coverage focused on these new songs. Some of the sources even compare the extended version of the song to the previously released version. I've added a few additional recently published sources, but more updating to the article is required. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't specifically know why Brighter Days Ahead would make this song notable on its own if it is still a deluxe edition of the parent album / film by its own singer. There seems to exist a general reason on why users assume that mere charting or having dozens of links discussing a song tangentially from the perspetive of an album will qualify as a standalone article as per GNG. Even GNG stipulates that the song must have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." In this case, the subject is Eternal Sunshine, not Ariana Grande.
So I clicked on every link and is was a disappointment. As of [1]
  • Primary sources discussing the song: 1, 8, 31
  • Secondary sources that don't even mention the song: 2, 3, 5
  • Secondary sources discussing the song from the album perspective: 4, 6, 7, 9 (tracklisting), 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 (rank of Grande's songs), 28, 29, 30 (rank of Grande's songs), 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 44
  • Secondary sources actually discussing the song (most of them are charts): 10, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53
  • Source 10 ([2]) is about the live promotion of the album, but it is the only source that does discuss the song. Ariana Grande discography#2020s already covers the charts anyway. (CC) Tbhotch™ 18:42, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for this breakdown! ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:47, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't suggesting Brighter Days Ahead "would make this song notable on its own", I was just saying there's a recent wave of press coverage that's barely been applied to the article and should also be taken into consideration. Not expecting to change your vote, just wanted to clarify. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:47, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is textbook WP:CRYSTALBALL, and a far-fetched one at that ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:44, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to my earlier comment: "I believe that the first deletion discussion wanting to keep this article was a blatant violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL, as in building an article around coverage that will later exist for no reason that is more detailed than a simple "trust me bro". It's been 11 months since that discussion, and the coverage that was so highly anticipated has not come to fruition." Your comment is openly voting to keep an article based on coverage that does not exist. λ NegativeMP1 17:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets GNG and NSONG. The existing cited sources about live performances and composition/critical reception are good enough to make a relatively detailed article, and there are more available. Per GNG "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." IMO the spirit of NSONG is about not creating articles for songs that are merely mentioned in an album review. That is not the case here, as the song received detailed commentary in album reviews, not just mentions that it exists. The cumulative material is such that it would be inappropriate to place in the album article. GNG says "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)." I read "or" to mean that NSONG does not supersede GNG. I think it meets both anyways. The subject is "Intro (End of the World)", not Eternal Sunshine. Coverage is independent of people affiliated with the song. This is what "independent of the subject" means. Heartfox (talk) 02:42, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. NSONG states that "notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". This is a reasonably detailed article about a song that also charted in several countries. Medxvo (talk) 02:22, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That clause means that even songs that meet notability requirements may not warrant their own articles—it does not mean that detailed articles about songs that don't meet the notability requirements should be kept. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:16, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What would prevent the songs that "have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works" from having a reasonably detailed article that can grow beyond a stub? Medxvo (talk) 11:22, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/Today&oldid=1238673950"