Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bang Bang Bang (Selena Gomez & The Scene song)


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Bang Bang Bang (Selena Gomez & The Scene song)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable song. Fails WP:NSONG. Redirect reverted without comment. SummerPhD (talk) 11:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The song is a promotional single, officialy released on iTunes on June 7, as part of the Countdown to When The Sun Goes Down campaing. It is a prminent song that has charted both in Billboard and iTunes charts. The article should not be removed nor deleted, just as Hair has not been. TheDukeofKB (talk) 08:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - "Hair" has charted. "Bang Bang Bang" has not charted "on Billboard", as far as I can see (iTunes charts are not meaningful). If it has charted, please add it to the article. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete . Premature article. Fails WP:NSONGS.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)Rendered moot by charting during course of AFD.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect – There's a huge chance of the song charting, and thus, becoming notable. ℥nding · start 17:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Easily passes WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NSONG. Already articles about the song in the New York Post, MTV Australia  and The Hot Hits Live from LA  just to name a few.  And just a few days after its release it's already #65 on the iTunes download chart (likely will climb as this AfD progresses).   To say this heavily promoted song by a hugely worldwide popular artist won't show up on the Billboard chart soon is willful ignorance. --Oakshade (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Update - Besides this easily passing WP:SONG, it predictably has already charted.  I urge the nom to withdraw this nomination and when a major worldwide popular artist releases a single in the future, even if you don't think it passes WP:SONGS, at least wait a couple weeks to see if it charts instead of immediately AfDing it.  A ton of time, effort and aggravation would've been avoided had the nom followed that common sense with this song. --Oakshade (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oakshade, the article clearly failed WP:NSONGS when it was created, and SummerPhd's nomination was both in good faith and quite warranted. She has shown a good comprehension of relevant policies and guidelines.You consistently read the notability notwithstanding clause exactly backwards. It means that even if the song can be demonstrated to be notable, no article should be created unless it can be bigger than a stub, not that if an article bigger than a stub can be created, the song doesn't need to pass the other criteria. The coverage of this article at the time it was created was shallow and insufficient to create an article, and it did not meet any of the established criteria. The time-wasting occurred because of the premature creation of the article, people redirecting the article when it clearly did not meet guidelines, and your constant arguing. If you would take the time to actually comprehend policies instead of insulting others comprehension of them, life would go much more smoothly. There's no excuse for creating articles before the song passes WP:NSONGS. I urge you exercising that same common sense that you want others to use to aid in the prevention of such problems in the future by not disputing obviously meritorious deletion nominations.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Kww, it was quite clear it passed WP:NSONGS after having done a simple g-news search (see WP:BEFORE which clearly was not done here) and the article could easily be "bigger than a stub" based on the significant coverage by reliable sources alone and it quickly became "bigger than a stub" even before it charted so that "bigger than a stub" demand is moot. And my point was, despite this song  easily passing WP:NSONGS and more importantly, WP:GNG which trumps WP:NSONGS which this passes, the nom still nominated a highly publicized single by an extremely worldwide popular artist almost immediately after the article was created.  The very top of WP:NOTABILITY states "it is best treated with common sense" and it despite the article clearly passing WP:NSONGS, it was common sense that this song had a strong (I believe obvious and I was correct) chance of charting soon and that it's common sense to hold off on an AfD in such a case.  Over 27k bytes of editors time and effort and WP space would've been saved.  That's an indisputable fact. --Oakshade (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Read the words in WP:NSONGS and quit distorting it to mean what you want. A song which has substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources meets the GNG, but does not meet WP:NSONGS. Passing the GNG without meeting the relevant subject notability guideline generally means that we should not have the article. It didn't pass WP:NSONGS until it charted, and it had not done so when the song was nominated. Common sense is to not create the article in the first place, and not edit-war the redirect that SummerPhd had installed. Common sense also means that you should treat her with respect, and not state that her actions wasted your time. You were under no obligation whatsoever to respond, and certainly under no obligation to misrepresent policies and guidelines in an extended argument. Your ability to predict the future is not at issue, as we don't have articles based on our opinion of what will happen in the future ... hopefully you don't disagree with everyone else as to what WP:CRYSTAL means, too.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Kww, you're under the false impression that WP:NSONGS, which this song passes, trumps WP:GNG. It doesn't.  If a song never charted, it can pass WP:NSONGS and more importantly WP:GNG.  And you're completely failing to understand the point of using common sense.  While you're attempting a straw man argument and claiming I'm "disrespecting her" and editing waring (where?), you're coming a across like a failed knight in shiny armor.  If Justin Beiber releases a highly publicized single tomorrow that receives significant coverage from multiple reliable sources as this one has, then it passes WP:GNG.  But even if you disagree with that, users should use common sense, as is stipulated at the top of WP:NOTABILITY, and not AfD it immediately to wait to see if it charts as it likely will.  Had the nom done that here, this whole mess of an AfD would've totally been avoided.  You can't get around that, Kww.  If you want to advocate more time wasting, that's your choice but most editors disagree with you.--Oakshade (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It wasn't you that edit-warred the redirect, it was an IP editor. Sorry if I didn't make it clear that it wasn't you. Whether an SNG trumps the GNG or vice versa is not universally agreed, so we can disagree in good faith over that. However, I am getting extremely tired of you saying things pass WP:NSONGS when they do not. The first test in passing WP:NSONGS is to pass the GNG: "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", but that is only the first test. It then must have charted, won an award, or been covered by multiple artists. Then, after having done all that to to achieve notability, there has to be enough material from reliable sources so that we can create more than a stub. Don't accuse me of violating WP:POINT or SummerPhd of not having any common sense, address that issue: since the song had not charted, won an award, or been covered, it can't pass the second test. At the time the article was nominated, there was not enough material to create more than a stub. Therefore, at the time of nomination, it didn't pass WP:NSONGS. If you cannot see that, please review boolean algebra. If you still disagree, explain why, don't assert that it passes without explaining how it passed all three tests. Like I said, we can disagree as to whether it had to pass WP:NSONGS or not, but it clearly did not pass it at the moment it was nominated for deletion.
 * As for the right thing to do with your hypothetical Bieber single, it's to do what SummerPhd did: redirect the article until it passes WP:NSONGS, and nominate it for deletion if someone undoes the redirection.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In every example of when WP:NOTABILITY comes into some kind of conflict with one of the sub-guidelines like WP:NSONGS, WP:NOTABILITY trumps the lesser ones. And immediately nominating an article of a highly publicized song by a hugely popular artist which passes WP:N and it's WP:GNG when there is a likely chance of it charting (even the New York Post predicted it would chart!) just isn't using common sense.  If you feel it's okay to fly in the face of using common sense and exercising yet another unnecessary 28k bytes of bandwidth, that's your opinion.  But most editors use common sense and try to avoid such an act of folly.  If the nom had held off for a couple of weeks, and it would've make perfect common sense to do that, this entire AfD would've been avoided.  That's a fact, Kww.  You can't avoid that.  If the same thing happens with Bieber (and it will), if you or another user prefers to act out in another exercise in frivolity, you'll be proven the case again.  I'm done here.  Enjoy your last rant. --Oakshade (talk) 15:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - With due respect to the "hugely worldwide popular artist", the iTunes chart is moot and the future charting in Billboard is rather tough to verify. The blog posting at the NYPost gives us zero usable content. The usable content from MTV Australia is that she "trash talk(s) an ex-boyfriend". Finally, the blogish post from the radio show "Hot Hits" adds speculation that the song might refer to Nick Jonas and Justin Bieber at various places. While the song clearly fails WP:MUSIC, we can probably sting together speculation from various gossipy sources to dish a bit about what Gomez, Toby Gad, Priscilla Renea and Meleni Meleni) may think of various characters in Gomez's dating story. Wikipedia, however, is not the place for that. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A New York Post reporter "blog" is not what WP:SPS|blog posting is about. That guideline is about exactly what it states, "self published" material like personal Live Journal-type blogs by non-professionals and not widely circulated reliable sources as the New York Post is.  In this case, the "blog" is by New York Post reporter Jarett Wieselman, not some self-published teenager.   And your analysis of the MTV Australia and The Hot Hits Live from LA about this topic is actually verifying this passing WP:NOTABILITY and its WP:GNG, which by the way trumps WP:MUSIC (which this easily passes anyway per the coverage it has received), not the other way around.--Oakshade (talk) 02:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - The blog section of NYPost does not have the same fact checking that gets the paper its status as a WP:RS. In any case, taking those three sources, we have the following pseudo-article: "Bang Bang Bang" is a song by Selena Gomez [Hot Hits] or Selena Gomez and the Scene. [NYPost] In the song, Gomez might be singing about her failed relationship with Nick Jonas and happiness with current lover "JB". [MTV Australia] Hot Hits asks, "What do you guys think of these vicious lyrics? Is Selena talking about Nick Jonas and Justin Bieber on the track?" [Hot Hits] The song has not charted." That's "enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article"?!?! - SummerPhD (talk) 03:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Charging that the New York Post and specifically reporter Jarett Wieselman of not fact checking is quite slanderous (I'm considering removing your comment per WP:BLP which applies to talk pages). You need to demonstrate evidence that this part of the New York Post does not fact check.  Otherwise the New York Post is a WP:RS whether a section by a reporter is called a "blog" or not.   For your other points, even if you don't like the content written by WP:RS sources about this topic, it still is covered by multiple reliable sources and easily passes WP:NOTABILITY and its WP:GNG.--Oakshade (talk) 03:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * SummerPhD's statement doesn't even approach a BLP violation, Oakshade. Statements like that do your cause more harm than good.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The BLP template states very clearly "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous." Charging a reporter of shoddy journalism and not "fact checking" is certainly contentious and there has been zero evidence of that charge. --Oakshade (talk) 04:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * My "charge" is that the blog section of the NYPost ' s website is not subject to the same fact checking that the paper's regular content gets. If you believe otherwise, feel free to show it. I said NOTHING about the reporter. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * First you claimed that the New York Post "blog" is a "self published source" which of course is nonsense, and now you're claiming some kind of insight that anything written in the "blog" section of the New York Post, which includes reporter Jarett Wieselman, doesn't have "same fact checking that gets the paper its status as a WP:RS." Where is your evidence that this section of the New York Post and reporter Jarett Wieselman has apparently shoddy enough fact checking that it should lose its "status as a WP:RS"?  Per WP:BLP, provide evidence of this contentious material or don't claim it.--Oakshade (talk) 04:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What "facts" are you hoping to cite? It's "100 percent guilt free!" or perhpas that it "has also been on repeat for an hour in the PopWrap HQ"? Where's this "contentious...potentially libellous" material? - SummerPhD (talk) 05:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Now I don't know what your point is. First you claim that a section of the New York Post is "self published" so that it has "zero usable content."  When that was quickly discounted, you then brought up some strange original research claim that the "blog" section of the New York Post and its reporters who write for it have some kind of sub-WP:RS fact checking, which is where the contentious charge of the reporter is.  In fact the New York Post review of this song is completely relevant and already cited.  Your claim here about the New York Post and its reporters is what was contentious, not what the reporter wrote in his article which of course wouldn't be a Wikipedia WP:BLP violation as the reporter didn't write his article in Wikipedia.  I thought that was obvious.--Oakshade (talk) 06:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I see the problem. To my knowledge, the blog sections of newspaper websites are not subjected to the same scrutiny that their regular columns are. If you are aware of some indication to the contrary in the case of the Post, it might establish that the blog post in question is reliable, though it is clearly not significant coverage. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * SummberPhD, you've provided absolutely zero evidence outside of "to my knowledge" (see WP:No Original Research) that this part of the New York Post outside of the semantics of this reporter's section being called a "blog" is not a reliable source. The New York Post follows every guideline of WP:RS with independence of the topic and has editorial control over its content.  If you don't think so, you need to provide actual evidence as such.  The burden that any part of the New York Post and content by its reporter Jarett Wieselman is unreliable is on you.  Just saying "to my knowledge" doesn't cut it.  And an in-depth review of the song is in fact significant coverage. --Oakshade (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a moot point unless you feel it's "100 percent guilt free!" and that it "has also been on repeat for an hour in the PopWrap HQ" is substantial coverage. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There's in fact far more than those two sentence fragments in the New York Post article, and including all the coverage from the multiple sources, it's very highly covered very easily passing WP:NOTABILITY and WP:SONGS.--Oakshade (talk) 00:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I say keep the article because VEVO has released her full song and she has confirmed it would be released as a single. I don't think it should be deleted even though it is a little premature because there are references. --DisneyFriends (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - There is no question that it has been released. The question is whether it is notable. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I am in complete agree with DisneyFriends i say we keep. Elektrik Band 19:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - How it is notable? - SummerPhD (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to Selena Gomez & The Scene until the song charts. The sources, IMO, are not reliable enough and furthermore, the song is not significantly covered enough in these sources to meet WP:GNG.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  23:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Now that it has charted, I change my !vote to Keep.  Eagles   24/7   (C)  16:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Only two reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. ۞   Tb hotch ™ &  (ↄ),  Problems with my English?  03:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What? Two reliable sources (actually there's much more than that) is demonstration of passing WP:GNG. --Oakshade (talk) 03:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Which, SG&S website? Youtube? iTunes? CDWow? Facebook??? If those are reliable sources keep it, but wait, they are not. ۞   Tb hotch ™ &  (ↄ),  Problems with my English?  03:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ignoring sources like the New York Post and MTV Australia and claiming the only sources are Facebook or whatever is a classic straw man argument. Even you're admitting it has at least two reliable sources, which in fact indicated passing WP:GNG.--Oakshade (talk) 04:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it is not. Two sources are not "significant coverage". It fails it. ۞   Tb hotch ™ &  (ↄ),  Problems with my English?  04:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In fact 2 entire articles (there are more than 2 actually) written about this topic is easily "significant coverage." Topic can pass WP:GNG if there's just one article that gives significant coverage. --Oakshade (talk) 04:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

As Oakshade apparently is not understandig what is GNG, and has a COI defending an indefensible article, I'll explain it: Tbhotch, you are demonstrating your complete lack of understanding of WP:GNG and only making up straw man arguments and arguing against them.
 * "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content -> "The song was written by Selena Gomez, Toby Gad, Priscilla Renea, Meleni Meleni.", "The song was released exclusively on U.S. iTunes on June 7.", "It is the first song from the iTunes Countdown of the album, and it will be followed by "Dices (Who Says Spanish version)" on June 14 and "Love You Like A Love Song" on June 21.", "It is the second song[2] released from the album." Absoulutely ALL unsourced and probable OR.
 * "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. -> Facebook, CDwow, Youtube, probably PopCrush are not reliable sources, the most reliable here is The New York Post with no doubt.
 * "Sources", for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. -> First of all, the article does not states why it is notable. Being a song released by Selena Gomez does not help it to pass WP:NSONGS. Second, Selena Gómez website is not a secondary source.
 * "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. The article can easily be merged into When the Sun Goes Down (Selena Gomez & the Scene album).
 * "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not.[5] -> Oakshade is commenting that "Bang x3" has charted on iTunes, and therefore it will chart in the near future. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and unless IT CHART the song has not charted giving no reason why the song is notable, nor why the article is vital and important to have it on Wikipedia. I won't reply, I'm not going to waste my time unlike Oakshade is doing it with this AFD.  ۞   Tb hotch ™ &  (ↄ),  Problems with my English?  04:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Significant coverage" - The New York Post, MTV Australia, OK! (magazine), Metro (British newspaper) and The Hot Hits Live from LA have all written articles specifically about this song.
 * "Reliable" -The New York Post, MTV Australia, OK! (magazine), Metro (British newspaper) and The Hot Hits Live from LA are all reliable sources as they all have editorial control over their content.
 * "Sources" - The New York Post, MTV Australia, OK! (magazine), Metro (British newspaper) and The Hot Hits Live from LA are all reliable sources and are all secondary sources.
 * "Independent of the subject" - The New York Post, MTV Australia, OK! (magazine), Metro (British newspaper) and The Hot Hits Live from LA are all reliable sources and are all not Selena Gomez or Hollywood Records. (I can't believe I actually had to point that out.) --Oakshade (talk) 04:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail. This has nothing to do with who the sources are. If the gods of every major religion in the world wrote articles in the New York Times, New England Journal of Medicine and Time saying (as these sources do) "it's got a good beat and you can dance to it", that would NOT be significant coverage. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You seemed to misunderstand the "Significant coverage" point. It's that multiple reliable sources published articles completely dedicated to the subject, not just who the sources are.  The coverage was much more than that sentence fragment you supplied.--Oakshade (talk) 04:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The term "significant coverage" does not have to do with the number of sources, who the sources are or that the articles be "completely dedicated to the subject". As the GNG you keep referring to says, " ' Significant coverage ' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." I am saying that the authors' opinions on the quality of the song and bare speculation that the song's four authors might have been writing about this, that or the other boyfriend is not discussing the subject in detail. We do not have detailed coverage. We have "there's a new song, I like it and I guess it might be about her love life". - SummerPhD (talk) 12:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't have to do with the number of sources? WP:GNG specifically addresses the issue of the number of sources: "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources."  And "trivial" is defined by WP:GNG by the example of a "one sentence mention" in a work about a different topic.  The multiple reliable sources give far beyond a "one sentence mention" and are in fact articles specifically about this topic.  That's significant and not "trivial" ("one sentence mention"). --Oakshade (talk) 15:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The term "significant coverage" does not have to do with the number of sources. It has to do with addressing "the subject directly in detail", presumably beyond "there's a single, I like it, the other three authors and Gomez might be talking about her love life". GNG further says a "one sentence mention" is plainly trivial while two books totaling over 900 pages are not trivial. The coverage here is in between plainly trivial and plainly non-trivial. I hold that a handful of people saying "I like this song, in might be about her love life" is trivial. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Multiple reviews and analysis of this topic by multiple reliable sources is directly addressing the subject in detail. Look at the article now, it's all in detail and all from the multiple reliable sources that covered the topic directly and in detail.  You might not like the detail, but that has nothing to do with WP:GNG.  And what part of WP:GNG's "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources" do you not understand?  If you'd like WP:GNG to omit the word "number" from it, you need to make your case on the WP:N talk page, not invent your own version of WP:GNG in an AfD.  And multiple articles by reliable sources directly about the topic is plainly far beyond a "one sentence mention" in a work about a different topic.  As you've gone from attempting to argue that the New York Post is a self published source to painstakingly extracting and cherry-picking sentence fragments from the coverage and WP:GNG and attempting to create new meanings of them (see WP:GAMETYPE), you're fighting a losing argument-shifting battle here --Oakshade (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as above. A few decent sources, and enough content for an article. J Milburn (talk) 13:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as above. Also, the song debuted at number 94 and number 96 on Billboard Hot 100 and Canadian Hot 100, respectively, this week. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 15:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It has charted in the US and Canada now. Pancake (talk) 16:00, 16 June 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.