Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Shuck (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   no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (also I recommend bundling noms of similar topics in the future) (non-admin closure) czar   &middot;   &middot;  00:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Black Shuck (song)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable for separate article; meets none of the 4 criteria at WP:MUS/SONGS, all citations are taken from reviews of the album, therefore no intrinsic notability. Bluidsports (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment all citations are taken from reviews of the album, therefore no intrinsic notability This is incorrect; the issue is only whether the coverage is significant or not. There could conceivably be significant coverage of a song in an album review, and depth of coverage can be built up from numerous reviews. This stands for all your recent nominations following this one. 86.42.93.209 (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment The songs do not meet the guidelines at WP:MUS/SONGS from what it says there. All songs from the first two Darkness albums all have separate articles. All articles excluding charted singles contain quotes and sound bites from reviews of either Permission to Land or One Way Ticket to Hell... and Back. The first criteria of verifying notability states: "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." All non-single releases by The Darkness are album tracks and are not the subjects of any press coverage. The subject is either Permission to Land or One Way Ticket to Hell... and Back. Furthermore, the songs have not been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts, as they are not singles. They have not won one or more significant awards or honors. And they have most certainly not been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups. If this was the practice for all artists then Kid A for example would have articles for every track, as would Be Here Now. The Darkness are no exception. Look at The Darkness' third album Hot Cakes, the less popular album is clearly setting an example for the first two. Bluidsports (talk) 23:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That criteria in fact reads "Has been the subject 1..." The cite note is necessary so that WP:NM is in line with the WP:GNG, which is explicit on the point: "it need not be the main topic of the source material". (Subjects need to pass either the subject-specific guideline or the GNG.) 86.42.68.128 (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone  00:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar   &middot;   &middot;  05:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Is anyone interested in actually giving their opinion here. All the other afd's for non notable Darkness songs failed to reach consensus. Does anyone else agree with me that all Darkness songs, except charted singles cannot have their own separate article using sound bites and quotes from album reviews; that is exactly the case here. No one seems interested, except one engaged user, who did at least suggest merging two of them. He did, thankfully agree with me on the notion that they had no outright notability. Bluidsports (talk) 00:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * if you are so starved of input, perhaps you should engage with the comment above. 86.42.72.87 (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The comment above has no strong argument. This song and every other Darkness album track have no distinction of notability. Anyone could easily create articles for any band of their choosing simply by using quotes and sound bites from the album reviews. The truth is, no Darkness songs apart from their charted singles have any notability. You just can't deal with that for some reason. Bluidsports (talk) 01:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you don't know what i'm talking about, let's use a good example. How about OK Computer, a featured article on Wikipedia. You will notice that 5 songs out of 12 have their own separate article. Three of them are singles, "Paranoid Android", "Karma Police" and "No Surprises". Out of the other two tracks that are notable, "Lucky" was released as a single in France, and was included in The Help Album. "Exit Music (For a Film) is particularly notable for featuring on the closing credits of the 1996 film William Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet. Unfortunately "Black Shuck" has never ventured outwith the Hawkins' bedroom . As for any other Darkness song. Bluidsports (talk) 02:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, see debate here Articles for deletion/Dinner Lady Arms. Another Darkness non-single album track identical to this song lacking notability. There is a clear consensus developing here that the song "Dinner Lady Arms" meets none of the 4 criteria at WP:MUS/SONGS. That same conclusion applies to "Black Shuck". Bluidsports (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * it demonstrates nothing to point to those articles. you nominated a bunch of articles all at once on the basis that "all citations are taken from reviews of the album, therefore no intrinsic notability", a basis that has no reflection in guideline or policy. if you got one of these closed as "merge" that will only result in a stupidly imbalanced album article, so, uh, well done i guess. between the choice of merging every song back to the album article, resulting in long, detailed album articles, and respecting the choice of the editors who actually did the work of sourcing and writing these articles, i would choose the second. anything outside of these two choices plainly degrades quality. 86.42.83.209 (talk) 02:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Why don't you accept that the basis for all these nominations was that you misread what "the subject" meant in the only criteria you have ever cited? 86.42.83.209 (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't support merging articles. I agreed with the user who said the songs were not notable; but merging them would create disordered and unnecessary extended articles which would look unappealing. Instead of putting the work into sourcing and writing separate articles, it would make more sense to expand the album articles. Writing sections such as: background, recording, music and lyrics, critical reception. There is no need to do such a thing for each individual song, each song article does not need a section titled release history and critical reception. Critics give their opinion on the album as an entire output, not individual songs unless it's a popular charted single. Bluidsports (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2013 (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.