Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/'97 Bonnie & Clyde


 * 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. While the article when nominated failed to show notability, sources clearly indicative of notability were produced during the discussion. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  06:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

'97 Bonnie & Clyde

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:NSONGS and WP:GNG. I am proposing that this article redirect to The Slim Shady LP.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  04:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to The Slim Shady LP per nom. Simply being covered by another notable artist does not in itself establish notability.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 08:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 08:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep but it needs expansion. Not a very well written article as it currently stands, but it does have information about the Tori Amos cover and some background on the song itself. Many album tracks do have their own articles, and this is a big-selling album by a notable and controversial artist. --Fightingirish (talk) 13:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Which points from WP:NSONGS does it pass?  Eagles   24/7  (C)  21:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * the first google books result alone has 7 or 8 pages on this song. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I see no Google Books reference on this page.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  01:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You do not understand "the first google books result"? 86.44.31.213 (talk) 02:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You do not understand there is only one reference and it is not Google Books?  Eagles   24/7  (C)  02:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I see. Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources. If the article can be fixed through normal editing... i forget how the rest of that one goes. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 03:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. In my view it fails WP:NSONGS --Legis (talk - contribs) 04:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 03:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree it's not very well written and definitely needs more than one source for the entire article. If nothing can be provided to help substantiate the article, a Redirect to either The Slim Shady EP or The Slim Shady LP would be appropriate. AlphaSur (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Which part of WP:MUSIC does it pass?  Eagles   24/7  (C)  01:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Coverage includes Nick Halsted. The Dark Story of Eminem, Omnibus Press, London: 2003 (pp. 98–101, p. 104, p. 167, pp. 235–?), and David Stubbs. Eminem: The Stories Behind Every Song, Da Capo Press, Cambridge, MA: 2006. (p. 37, pp. 45–49, p. 60). It's a key text in studies concerning eminem, hip hop, "white trash", even theology! [Gordon Lynch. Understanding Theology and Popular Culture, Wiley-Blackwell: 2005 (pp. 127–134)] That's because it's one of a handful of tracks responsible for his early reputation for shock, humor, dysfunction, violence and misogyny. Hence Newsweek called it "supremely controversial" (though for TIME it was just "a ripping satire"). Anyhoo it's notable as all get out. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 02:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree that this constitutes "significant coverage" per WP:GNG. Brief mentions of the song in one or two news articles and analysis of lyrics of, apparently, all of Eminem's songs in a book is not close to the level of coverage Wikipedia topics should be getting.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  02:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NSONG, "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."  Eagles   24/7  (C)  02:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A charitable explanation for your view is that you should take a few more seconds to evaluate rather dense text. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 03:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 15:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:NSONG, has this impacted any music chart? Have any music critic(s) establishes its notability or importance to Eminem's career or to the rap/music world? Have the media picked up the song in their shows, movies or other promotional importance? Best, Jona yo! Selena 4 ever  21:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. For instance, Hasted has been music critic at The Independent for some 15 years, and Stubbs is perhaps one of the UK's better known music critics. A selection of his work for Melody Maker, Uncut and The Guardian can be found here: . Both have written extensively about the track, in the process describing it as "notorious", "one of his most infamous", "deeply controversial", "the track critics zeroed in on", "appalling, thrilling, grossly unfair and brilliantly audacious" and "real-life dysfunction and the airing of lowlife laundry [which] sells big in the U.S." As you would expect from such descriptions, coverage is by no means limited to these two. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 03:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.