Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cease Fire (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   merge to Lotus (Christina Aguilera album). (non-admin closure)  Jay Jay What did I do? 01:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Cease Fire (song)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I do not believe that this song is notable on its own. All 13 songs from the regular version of Christina Aguilera's Lotus album now have articles, with "Cease Fire" being one of the last few. WP:NSONG says a song may be notable if it has "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works". But it's Lotus that was the subject of the sourced articles: I don't see that this song has independent notability outside of Lotus. The background section is quite similar to the one for the album and many of the songs from it, and the reception section quotes exclusively from articles reviewing the album as a whole (these are frequently in "song-by-song" format, which provides material for all 13 songs). The South Korean chart cited in the article has 200 slots, and all 13 songs plus three of four bonus tracks from the deluxe version charted the week the album was released (the fourth that didn't chart was a remix of "Your Body", one of the regular tracks). "Cease Fire" was the lowest charting of these at number 189, on sales of only 1,707 digital downloads. (Only four of the 16 songs charted in the top 100 that first week, and only one of the 16 charted the next week.) If it had made the top 100 there might be an argument for this to be notable, but it didn't.

Whether the lack of independent notability means the article should be deleted (redirected to Lotus?) or some details of the song merged into the album's article, I don't know. Can every song on an album—in this case, one that was given a mixed reception and had only moderate success—truly be notable? If not, then I don't see a basis for this song to have an article. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

My opinion
Honestly, I can't see why the song has been in discussion for being deleted or redirected, because the Development section is very excellent, explaining many things and the reviews of the "Critical Reception" section, talk about the song itself, not the album as a whole. And, it doesn't matter if the song has charted at #189, it has charted and the article is relevant. FanofPopMusic (talk) 03:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Looking at this article section by section, here's what I found:
 * 'Background' - this content is background for the album, not this individual song. If the article is kept, this section should be removed (or merged to the album page if there's any new info here).
 * 'Development' - Deezer is cited twice, but the link says "Deezer's music services are not yet available in your country"; I am unable to verify anything in this section, including the quotes (Google comes up with no matches).
 * 'Composition and lyrics' and 'Critical reception'- there are roughly a dozen or so sources cited in these two sections; none of them offer in-depth (more than 1-2 sentences of) coverage on the song. I also note that some of the citations are iffy - for example, this article says "It is a rock-tinged song", but the source calls "Army of Me" (another song on the album) a "rock-tinged" track; there is no mention of "Cease Fire".
 * 'Chart performance' and 'Charts' - peaking at #189 on a single singles chart doesn't keep with the spirit of WP:NSONGS #2, in my estimation.
 * For me, the bottom line is that the dozen or so reliable sources that discuss the song each contains trivial coverage; that does not equal in-depth coverage, so the song does not appear to meet WP:GNG. The closest it comes to meeting WP:NSONGS is where it states: "enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". That may be satisfied here, but since all of the mentions seem to be within the context of previewing or reviewing the album as a whole, I'm leaning towards redirecting/merging to the Lotus (Christina Aguilera album) page.  Gong   show  07:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge. The song lacks the indepth and signifiant coverage required for WP:GNG. I didn't see anything in the article that wasn't more than a trivial mention. The size is not convincing, as the background section is irrelevant, while the critical reception section has been bombarded with quotes. As the nom states, the song isn't the subject of the sources but rather the album is. Till  11:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - To be honest, to nominate this detailed article for deletion is moronic and personal. How is this not notable? It meets all points of GNG. Aguilera spoke about the song specifically, and a lot of critics wrote about it. BlueMoonset, it is not actually essential for a song to have charted, it is just a bonus. There is no rule saying that songs which chart between 101-200 are less notable than 1-100, that is your personal opinion. You have no idea what you are talking about and you are out of your depth here. It's actually quite embarrassing. And Till, so you think that songs reviews within an album review are just trivial? Explain your thesis to me please. Because if everyone had your view, I'm pretty sure that Critical reception sections would be near enough non-existent. —  AARON  &bull; TALK   17:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Aaron, I'm frankly getting tired of your characterizations: "moronic and personal" is both wrong and a shocking failure of AGF. I have no animus toward you, and have had virtually no interaction with FanofPopMusic, whose article this is. My nomination was based on my perception—for many of the reasons Gongshow has expressed above (though less well articulated by myself)—that the song does not seem to be notable on its own. I may be wrong in this, but if so it's an honest error, and based on experience with a number of AfDs that have affected articles submitted to Did You Know (DYK). This article seemed to me to have more questionable notability than some that were deleted or merged, which led to this nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well you certainly could have fooled me with how you don't really seem to listen to what I say and how you suddenly seem to be everywhere I go on Wikipedia. How is it not notable on its own:


 * 1) Background and recording shows how events which she experienced influenced all of the songs she recorded for the album, as well as the recording and production process.
 * 2) Inspiration sections is Aguilera giving her reason for why she chose to record the song and what meaning it has, relating back to the Background section (although to be honest, I could expand this).
 * 3) The Composition and lyrics section details the structure of the song and further details the lyrics of the song and what it pertains to.
 * 4) The Critical reception section is made up of so many critics reviews of the song. For an album that didn't do that well, a lot of people wrote about it.
 * 5) The charting further adds to notability, although it is not a full requirement of GNG. Chart position has no influence over "notability", it doesn't matter if the song charted at 1 or 200. If you look around Beyonce and Rihanna articles, you will find that a lot of songs chart between 101-200 in South Korea, US, UK, across Europe and Australia.
 * I just completely fail to see how you think this does not pass notability guidelines or is not notable? Have you looked at the four guideline points? A lot of articles don't have this much information, for a singer to talk in depth about one song is very rare. If anything, this makes it stand out more than generic music articles. A lot of singles don't even get this information conveyed by the singer. I've been working on music articles since July 2011 and dedicated a lot of time to it, I know what flies and what doesn't. If I didn't think this was notable, I wouldn't have created it. Hence why the three bonus tracks from Lotus, which charted, do not and will not have articles, purely because next to no critics wrote about them. Perhaps now you can see why you have caused me great frustration. —  AARON  &bull; TALK   20:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the song charted at a mediocre position which nobody cares about. Secondly, the information from Christina is not indepdendent of the subject, and thus doesn't have any effect towards the notability. Thirdly, the background section isn't even about this song, it's complete WP:PUFFERY to make the article bigger than it needs to be. Fourthly, the critical reception section has been bombarded with quotes from critics to also make it look bigger than it needs to be. This information should be merged into the article about the album because none of the information here is indepth and significant. Clearly, it's ok to merge other people's work into other articles and not give a rat's *** about that, but when it comes to their own article it's a complete different story. Till  23:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * But which position has no relevance, there is no rule saying that 101-200 are not worthy, don't you understand that? Yes, Aguilera's information does affect notability: people who write these music articles want the singer to have spoken about it. You can't get better knowledge and insight about the song than from the singer direct. The background pertains to both the Inspiration and Composition sections, as did all the songs. The songs came about as a result of the Background. I don't mind re-writing the Critical reception section, as the original does have a problem with just using quotes, but still, that would not affect length. There is too much information here for Lotus. And Till, I hope you are not basing your argument on your personal experience with LilUnique and "Come Alive" and bringing it here because you are angry about him AFD'ing some articles you wrote because you AFD'd one of his, as you have certainly made it sound like it with that statement. I wasn't even involved with what happened between you too, and I didn't find out that he had AFD'd your articles until it was too late. I only knew about "Come Alive" because I am very involved with Lewis' articles. I don't really understand why you are saying "Clearly, it's ok to merge other people's work into other articles and not give a rat's *** about that, but when it comes to their own article it's a complete different story." when you decided to Merge those two articles anyway and effectively agree with LilUnique half way. —  AARON  &bull; TALK   23:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not angry, after all the article was rightfully meged into the album. And so should this one too. Till  00:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You sound it. And no, this one shouldn't. There is a lot more info than the two you had. I've already proven the notability in the 5 points I listed above. It's not my fault if people want to be blinkered and incompetent in their wrong and warped decisions. A very weak case has been presented, and I have highlighted the weaknesses and flaws of thi suggestion of deletion. —  AARON  &bull; TALK   00:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm just basing my vote on policy. With all the respect I have for you, I do not think there is much justification to separate this from the album article to be honest. Till  00:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * But the policy is overruled here as the article meets all parts of the four guidelines at GNG. There is a lot of information here for a non-single, many don't receive this much. Wikipedia is about creating and maintaining an ever growing encyclopedia, and this article is an example. As I keep saying, but no one is listening or taking note, it meets the guidelines and is notable. Basing your opinion on policy isn't a valid answer, as the policy and guideline goes against what you are saying and what this article does meet. —  AARON  &bull; TALK   00:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I agree 100% with AARON, I really don't know how a well-written article like that may be deleted, because as Aaaron mentioned, many singles don't have the information that this article has.

FanofPopMusic (talk) 03:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) I live in Brazil and the "Deezer" website is working and I would never made up any word that she said.
 * 2) It is not necessary to add a new Background for every song, if you look for "Rihanna and Beyoncé singles," you will find the same background, which is normal, since it shows how the album was done and how the song was part of it.
 * 3) And the chart position is not a considerable point of discussion, because "many songs from Rihanna and Beyoncé" has charted under the 101-200 position, as Aaron previously said.
 * No one cares where you live.
 * It is not necessary to have a Background section at all. This is nothing more than WP:PUFFERY and bloating.
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an acceptable argument. Besides, the Lotus album article can simply state 'Cease Fire peaked at number x on the South Korea chart' which is more than sufficient.
 * None of the content in this article is significant coverage and it should be merged into the parent album accordingly Till  10:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if the background was removed, even though it is relevant, there it is still a notable article. You statement "'Cease Fire peaked at number x on the South Korea chart' which is more than sufficient." is nowhere near acceptable. There is a lot of information here. Face it, you and BlueMoonset have shown yourselves up by advocating for a notable article to be deleted. This article does have sufficient information, more so than a what lot of non-singles have. Major epic fail on your parts here. Even if I had of had nothing to do with article before, all my comments here would have been the same. You've got such double standards, all because of what happened between you and Lil-Unique. —  AARON  &bull; TALK   12:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * OMG, why are you so rude, Till? I only said that I live in Brazil because you questioned the Deeezer website reference, and I only told you that here in Brazil is working. I never thought that Wikipedia was a place of rudeness and unkindness. FanofPopMusic (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I was the one that brought up Deezer, and stated only that I could not access the site and therefore could not view/evaluate the quotes. I made no claims as to the site's (or any user's) integrity. As for the "Background" section, my point there was that I don't think we want to get into the habit (or, at least, I don't) of having virtually word-for-word identical "Background"s for each of an album's 10/12/15+ tracks. Such content, in my opinion, should generally be specific to an individual song; otherwise it's better to simply put it in the album article.  Gong   show  18:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge. In my mind the notability test is still the question: has the topic "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? Looking at the number of references, I actually thought for a moment that this pretty clearly was notable based on that test. However, once I started looking at those sources in more detail, it became apparent that few of those sources mention this particular song more than very briefly, some of them don't mention it at all. Based on weighing the amount of coverage devoted to this song specifically, it's pretty clear that the article fails that notability test.--Carabinieri (talk) 15:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you seriously saying that the reviews don't talk about the song itself?? The Slant Magazine, 4 Music, Billboard, Pop Crush, Idolator and Popjustice reviews talk about the song solely. This is really happening? Are you really reading the reviews properly?? OMG! FanofPopMusic (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Slant Magazine has exactly ONE sentence about this song. 4Music has four, sort of. Billboard has three. That's not significant coverage.--Carabinieri (talk) 03:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge (with redirect). The discussion here from the three people uninvolved in this article—Gongshow, Till, and Carabinieri—confirms my initial impression and reasoning that the song is not notable on its own, separate from Lotus. I rather expect that this also applies to a couple of other articles about songs from this album—no one has yet commented on whether all songs from a typical top-ten album generally deserve their own articles, and if not what makes this album special as to warrant all of its songs getting the treatment—but this one seems to me to be very clear. (I do wish the Deezer source, material, and its treatment of the album and all the songs, had been available in the US or otherwise searchable so it could be evaluated, but it's out of my reach.) BlueMoonset (talk) 01:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to note that I have looked at FanofPopMusic's improvements, and while the entire Background section (about Lotus) has been removed, the new phrases do not affect my !vote or overall analysis. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I just improved this article and it's way better now! Check it out! FanofPopMusic (talk) 14:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the work you've put into the article. However, it doesn't address the problems being discussed here. It doesn't change anything about the lack of significant coverage in sources independent of the article's subject. Those opposing this nomination have yet to provide evidence of this article's notability - that makes this whole ordeal rather frustrating.--Carabinieri (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


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


 * I've considered FanofPopMusic's statement above as a reason to relist this AfD and encourage more !voters to consider the changes made to the article. At the same time, I should request specific editors to not make tendentious statements to other editors. I'm watching this page and would request you to argue, not abuse. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Wifione  Message 09:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)




 * Merge or redirect, I guess. The article shows no independent significance of the song apart from a quote from Aguilera, which must be supported by substantial third party coverage. Of course in an album review the writer is going to comment on the song. A truly standalone song article has album review sources backed up by sources that only discuss the subject in question. This article lacks such coverage owing to unreliable sources, repeated information and overquoting. Much of this information can be incorporated into the composition section of Lotus (Christina Aguilera album), since this article does have more info than "Best of Me" (Christina Aguilera song) (also at AfD). — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  14:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge. I have looked at the article since my earlier comments and I think, much like the "Best of Me" AfD, that the song does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS. Re-writes and editing, in my view, won't help the song to clear the bar unless accompanied by a source or two containing in-depth coverage on the song.  Gong   show  21:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge or redirect. Same for all the other non-single Aguilera songs. They're not relevant enough to have their own article, and their information can be easily merged in the Lotus article.  ×º°”˜ `”°º× ηυηzια  ×º°”˜ `”°º×  10:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge or redirect. Every song on an album does not need an article. Charting at #189 in South Korea (which most of these songs have done or close) isn't a reason to keep. This information can easily be merged into Lotus. —  Diva    Knockouts   05:13, 28 February 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.