Talk:Goodbye (Billie Eilish song)

Appearances
"The single or album has appeared on any country's national music chart." Topped the charts in Australia and Canada. Peaked at #4 in the US bubbling under the hot 100. 23:27, 29 March 2020‎ User:Beatleswillneverdie

Discussion

 * User:Sulfurboy, User:AngusWOOF - You have both declined this draft. The draft currently shows that the song charted in Canada.  What is the reason for not accepting it?  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Beatleswillneverdie - Please stop simply resubmitting this draft and discuss it rather than just resubmitting it. Please provide your reasons why it should be accepted.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The real question should be whether an article on the song will be kept if it is accepted and then nominated for deletion. Songs are usually accepted based on musical notability if they have charted, and are usually deleted otherwise.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think my problem here is a bit more broad. Could this pass an AfD? Probably, but only with the help of other editors contributing and putting in the work to prove notability. I do not want to approve this draft and further encourage to continue creating song pages with shaky notability that we again and again have to review and decline. Nor do I want them coming to the AfC help desk multiple times for each article asking the same questions that have been answered multiple times. I don't mean this to come across as harsh, but the user has over 2,000 edits and the training wheels should have been taken off by now. I'm okay with approving this, but Beatles you need to from now on CLEARLY demonstrate notability, don't make multiple editors have to sink in time for each article rehashing the same lesson in notability. Sulfurboy (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Beatleswillneverdie - I will be approving this draft within 24 hours, but you should take the advice of User:Sulfurboy and remember that we are all working on the same encyclopedia, and so avoid being tendentious. I have already Ignored All Rules for you once to agree to move an article into article space that didn't pass musical notability criteria.  I have on the other hand sent one of your drafts to Miscellany for Deletion.  Occasionally I make the comment in a draft that something, such as submitting test edits to AFC, wastes time and annoys the reviewers.  You are annoying the reviewers, although we know that you are editing in good faith to increase the coverage of obscure songs.  Maybe the reviewers can help you if you stop annoying us.  Slow down and stop pushing on everything, so that when you do push, we might push with you.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , the single did not TOP any charts in Australia or Canada, so please do NOT add false information like that. It may have charted in Canada but that needs to be listed in the opening paragraph and replace the sentence about it making the Bubbling Under charting which is not notable. The ARIA chart was not verified by the ARIA website, which only indicates if it made the top 50, and has no information about this single's charting there. I rejected it that time because of the ARIA claim., I have since changed the opening paragraph to favor the Canadian charting, and fixed the incorrect article titles for MTV and Variety. It should be okay now. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 03:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Billie Elish
My heart keeper 😍 Amanda Mnyani (talk) 22:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Observations
May I suggest that some patience and willingness to edit collaboratively would help here, as it often helps to improve an encyclopedia? I realize that some editors want this page, and some don't. Either take it to Articles for Deletion and let the community decide whether to redirect it, or leave it alone. And don't play silly games. Am I correct that an editor nominated the article for a Good Article article in order to criticize it? That doesn't seem useful. By the way, the comment that it is only a stub that was made in the GA review is incorrect. The article is rated Start-Class, which is the next class above Stub-Class, and the automated Rater tool thinks that it should be C-Class, although we humans know better. If this article really was nominated for Good Article in order to promote it to Good Article, that was silly. If this article really was nominated for Good Article in order to find fault with it, that was also silly. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , the user has nominated several Billie Eilish songs for GA, one of which is still up for nomination. I have actually been very patient, done a thorough review here and offered to help them at Talk:Everything I Wanted/GA2 which they declined by failing the GA themself. My stance still stands that this article should be redirected because it fails WP:NSONGS. How am I supposed to "take it to Articles for Deletion" when you told me on my talk page,I can't nominate it for deletion again? Should I start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion?  Cool Marc  18:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no need to go to AFD for this. It does not meet WP:NSONG and should be redirected to When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go?.  DarklyShadows has created more than one article for a non-notable song and this is not different. -- Whpq (talk) 19:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Whpq - Please explain "There is no need to go to AFD for this". If one editor thinks it does not meet song notability and another does, then the deletion policy states that AFD is an appropriate forum to decide whether to redirect.  Robert McClenon (talk) 06:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Second this comment. Redirects should be non-controversial. There's overwhelming evidence here that a redirect would be controversial. AfD is the only appropriate avenue. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * AFD should be a last resort. None of the reasonable outcomes require deletion.  A discussion about the notability of the song can be had here on the talk page of the article. -- Whpq (talk) 11:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Whpq - How do you propose that an inconclusive discussion about the notability of the song be addressed? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Notify any editors of this article and associated wikiprojects. -- Whpq (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If only there were a conveniently central place to do that Sulfurboy (talk) 07:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , Is that what you think on every article I create? This song has charted in Canada and that satisfies notability. "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." DarklyShadows (talk)
 * I have not looked at every article you created so I have no opinion on that. But I have seen several article you have created which are not notable.  It's clear to me that you have an insufficient understanding of notability.  I point you to Even in His Youth which you edit-warred to remove a redirect from more than pone editor resulting in Articles for deletion/Even in His Youth which you didn't even bother to participate in. -- Whpq (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * , I didn’t bother to participate because everyone said to redirect it. So why waste my time on trying to save the article. And it’s like every article I create you are trying to get it deleted or redirected. DarklyShadows (talk) 20:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * User:Whpq may not be aware that AFD is the way to resolve a dispute about whether to redirect a song to an album. AFD is the way to resolve disputes about deletion-like actions such as redirecting.  I am willing to make a procedural AFD nomination and be neutral if that will help.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Good Article Review
User:Coolmarc, User:DarklyShadows, anyone else: Who nominated this article for Good Article? And why? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , Is this a rhetorical question? The GA review is on this very same page.  Cool Marc  ✉   19:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Coolmarc - No, it wasn't a rhetorical question. I was wondering if the assumption of good faith indicated that I had misread something.  It appeared that the Good Article nomination for what was being called a stub, although it was really Start-Class, was just making a point by wasting time.  If my original reading was correct, then the less charitable question than Who is Why (was the article nominated).  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you for pointing that out again. I already forgot that you nitpicked that from my review in the above discussion yesterday. Why don't you ask the nominator why they nominated it and not me?  Cool Marc  ✉   21:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Coolmarc - I see two possible explanations now. Either I was right in asking who nominated the article for Good Article because it isn't obvious, or it is obvious.  It appears that you, User:Coolmarc, nominated the article for Good Article status in order to write a negative review.  If so, you were disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.  Otherwise, it really isn't obvious who nominated it.  If you nominated it, why did you nominate it?  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , As I said above it was nominated by DarklyShadows. It is obvious and how many more times do I have to say it? DarklyShadows is clearly new to Wikipedia and a fan of Billie Eilish, appearing to nominate and create Eilish song articles for GA because they like the artist. As I told them at Talk:Everything I Wanted/GA2, constantly nominating articles that do not meet GA criteria in hope that someone eventually passes them will not work on Wikipedia. I hope you are not trying to cast aspersions on me and I think the way you have called me out and your accusations about me are ridiculous. I have been editing Wikipedia for 6 years and have been never been involved in disrupting the encyclopedia. I have done nothing wrong here and I am disappointed this is the way I get treated for taking time out of my day to volunteer to review DarklyShadows nomination and try help them learn the ropes on here.  Cool Marc  ✉   06:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Coolmarc - I don't see a statement above here where you said that User:DarklyShadows had nominated the song for Good Article. That is why I asked.  The edit history of the Good Article review appears to be by User:Coolmarc.  I had thought that that would be strange, so I asked who nominated it.  I didn't get an answer, but if User:Coolmarc had nominated it, they had done so to make a point.  So I asked, and didn't initially get an answer.  Maybe I need to do some research on the details of the Good Article process, but I thought that I would ask.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * and, I think we all need to reset our AGF meters. Marc, I think Robert was just trying to suss out who nominated the article for GA review (it isn't readily apparent to me either). I think there was some miscommunication about what Robert was asking, and he mistook you not saying explicitly who nominated it for trying to hide something.
 * We all want what's best for the wiki, even though we have currently have differing opinions on how to accomplish that. Marc, I can tell you as a tl;dr background of DarklyShadows (who I believe was formally Beatleswillneverdie), they are an editor that both Robert and I have attempted to guide. Darkly has the will and want to build things here, unfortunately even with a bunch of hand holding, they still seem to not get it.
 * The GA nominations by them is an example of that. It's commendable Marc, that you actually took the time to write out a review for an article that had a WP:SNOWs chance of being GA. However, please understand where Robert is coming from; this is an editor that has immense potential, and Robert is doing anything he can to ensure this editor doesn't get discouraged and bullied out (not saying you're doing that, just explaining what i believe his frustration to be). Sulfurboy (talk) 07:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you for the explanation. While DarklyShadows has immense potential, and based on the accusations here and Robert constantly calling me out - it should not be my expense, who is to say that I am not frustrated and discouraged after all this? I have offered DarklyShadows guidance at Talk:Everything I Wanted/GA2 which they declined. and I have both explained how this article fails WP:NSONGS. I don't know what else I am supposed to say here. Should I just move on and let an article that does not have notability stay in the main space to not upset a newcomer?  Cool Marc   ✉   08:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not what I'm saying. Helping a new editor shouldn't come at a compromise of the integrity of the wiki, that would defeat the purpose. However, I think it's clear at this point, if notability concerns persist, then AfD is the route to go. If anything that might be a learning process for the editor that finally gets the message across . I also think it would be a much more concise action. I think user is way more likely to get discouraged (or at least confused) by other users (not saying you) constantly moving their work in and out of draftspace or bald redirects as suggested above and people constantly threatening AfD. Sulfurboy (talk) 08:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What I can see is that User:DarklyShadows is an enthusiastic inclusionist for songs. There is a discussion at Village pump in which I asked about redirect disputes.  As I observed at Village Pump, redirect disputes about songs involve inclusionists, who want articles on as many musical topics as possible, artists, albums, and songs, and redirectionists, who prefer to redirect lower-level topics, especially songs, to higher-level topics, either albums or artists.  The consensus at Village Pump is that redirect disputes should be resolved by AFD.  Redirecting is a deletion-like action, and issues can be resolved by deletion debates.  I see that there have already been deletion debates on some of the song articles created by DarklyShadows.  I see that DarklyShadows wants to create as many song articles as possible.  That is all right as long as they realize that some editors disagree, and as long as they realize that some of "their" articles will be redirected.  We should welcome DarklyShadows providing content, even if it gets merged. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not what I'm saying. Helping a new editor shouldn't come at a compromise of the integrity of the wiki, that would defeat the purpose. However, I think it's clear at this point, if notability concerns persist, then AfD is the route to go. If anything that might be a learning process for the editor that finally gets the message across . I also think it would be a much more concise action. I think user is way more likely to get discouraged (or at least confused) by other users (not saying you) constantly moving their work in and out of draftspace or bald redirects as suggested above and people constantly threatening AfD. Sulfurboy (talk) 08:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What I can see is that User:DarklyShadows is an enthusiastic inclusionist for songs. There is a discussion at Village pump in which I asked about redirect disputes.  As I observed at Village Pump, redirect disputes about songs involve inclusionists, who want articles on as many musical topics as possible, artists, albums, and songs, and redirectionists, who prefer to redirect lower-level topics, especially songs, to higher-level topics, either albums or artists.  The consensus at Village Pump is that redirect disputes should be resolved by AFD.  Redirecting is a deletion-like action, and issues can be resolved by deletion debates.  I see that there have already been deletion debates on some of the song articles created by DarklyShadows.  I see that DarklyShadows wants to create as many song articles as possible.  That is all right as long as they realize that some editors disagree, and as long as they realize that some of "their" articles will be redirected.  We should welcome DarklyShadows providing content, even if it gets merged. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Explanation
I have, with a little explanation from another editor, learned something about the esoteric details of the Good Article process. I see why I didn't know who had nominated Goodbye for Good Article. The process is complex, poorly documented, and poorly self-documenting. I now see, as I previously did not, that the nomination is done by the nominator sticking the GAN template at the top of the page and substing it. This causes various sorts of magic to be done behind the scenes. It then permits a review to be developed by one or more reviewers, who should not be the nominator. It isn't obvious that that is the process. User:Coolmarc - When an experienced editor asks another experienced editor a question that seems obvious, maybe it is a real question and deserves a real answer, and maybe the refusal to answer, even if you think that you are answering, can be seen as an answer by silence. You didn't tell me who had nominated this song for Good Article. You were the first editor to review it, and that created the subpage. I acknowledge that I made an incorrect inference. I do not apologize for it, because you brought it on by dancing around my direct question, when there was no need to dance around it. So maybe now we can proceed. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

As User:Sulfurboy and I have pointed out, different editors have different views as to how many distinct articles should be used to contain the content of the encyclopedia. User:DarklyShadows is an inclusionist, who wants many articles, and is enthusiastic about providing them. User:Coolmarc appears to be a redirectionist, who wants to keep the number of articles to a moderate level. We should agree that inclusionists provide a valuable service in music by adding a lot of content, even if the content is merged. Inclusionists should also understand that sometimes their contributions will be redirected or merged, which is not the same as having their contributions deleted. (Spam should be deleted. There are arguments about when trivia should be deleted.  Details should often be kept somewhere.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Independent sources
Before anyone redirects the page, there are two sources from reliable sources and are not reviews from the album. and The Ultimate Boss (talk) 01:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I have to redirect the page to the album because the sources you have cited still have not properly establish notability for the song. Regarding the first source, Genius is generally considered to be unreliable due to most of its content being mostly user-generated. Almost half of the article is also from an MTV News interview with Eilish that is cited from your second source, and the Notability guidelines for songs state: "This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work."

ThedancingMOONpolice (talk) 10:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)