Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Come Alive (Leona Lewis 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 Glassheart. no convincing argument, including significant coverage, was made to support WP:NSONG J04n(talk page) 11:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Come Alive (Leona Lewis song)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Song was not released as a single, never charted, and has no sources discussing it in depth as required for a stand alone article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Has been performed several times and has a lot of information about it. 24 reliable and well used sources as well. Considering the staple it has been in promotion for the album, it is likely to become a single. To be honest, this whole thing about not being a single/never charted is becoming tiresome and redundant now. There are a lot of song articles by other singer's where the situation is exactly the same. If the song hadn't of been performed live at all I might have simply posted this is a comment, but as it has had significant coverage as part of promotion it is a keep from me. There is too much information here to condense down into Glassheart. The article is clearly informational and is more than a stub with next to no sources. —  AARON  &bull; TALK   11:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You can likewise argue that at the DYK nomination, where the issue of notability has been a concern — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The notability lies in its 5 live performances. Non singles rarely get performed live 5 times on TV. —  AARON  &bull; TALK   11:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't see that in the guidelines. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not, but it should be. It's stupid saying that articles can only exist if it chart or received an award (says nothing about being a single or not). Some articles on here haven't ever been performed live or charted or received an award and still exist. People have too much time on their hands. This article clearly demonstrates clear and good information for people, why delete it? —  AARON  &bull; TALK   11:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think it passes WP:GNG and as such meets WP:NSONG criterion 1. – anemone projectors – 13:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't meet either WP:GNG or WP:NSONG per the indepth analysis of the sources. Till  00:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per the live performances sections. Five times performed on TV is notable enough for a song article to exist on Wikipedia. Also agree with AnemoneProjectors. — Tomíca (T2ME) 13:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Agreed with the above. It seems to have established its notability through live performance. It also has a fair amount of reception and information about the song's production. In addition, it could also become a single and chart. Charting =/= creating an article. — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 15:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to album. Looking at the sources presented in the article I don't see how it passes GNG ("significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"). Don't see how a live performance of a song makes it notable either, unless it leads to coverage under the GNG.
 * No mention of the song
 * Brief mention along with another song
 * Album review that mentions the song five words short paragraph (every other song gets one too) three sentences, sentence fragmentsentence fragment
 * Just listed in a list
 * There are four videos used in the article, which I have not examined (do not wish to watch them all for a mention of this song - but if you give me a time I may look at that part), although most appear to be primary sources anyway.
 * Looking at the current sources I say that it should be merged into the album Glassheart AIR corn (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews." It meets this part, and it only needs to meet one of the four. —  AARON  &bull; TALK   18:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How does it meet this part? The closest I found was this, but it is a stretch to say it is significant coverage. AIR corn (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Songs and singles may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria:

Has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work." —  AARON  &bull; TALK   21:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * An example please. I have gone through all of them listed in the article and given the source I think best meets this requirement. It is not the subject and even if it was it is only one work (i.e. fails the multiple part). In every other source the mention is trivial. AIR corn (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: The notability guideline for songs is currently being discussed, and changes are being suggested on its talk page. — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 21:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That seems to be a discussion regarding removing or devaluing the chart criteria, so is probably not relevant to this debate. AIR corn (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The quote I posted, however, is. —  AARON  &bull; TALK   21:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And yet you can't give an example. I am not sure you understand what you are quoting. AIR corn (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - kinda a IAR Keep from me, but appearing 5 times on TV seems notable to me (as a non-single), and the article itself seems very well written and uses a handful of other refs that refer to the song, either in passing or in slightly more detail. In conjunction with the changes being made to the NSONGS guideline, I'd say leave this for now, and maybe come back to AfD again if the guideline doesn't change, or doesn't affect the article. Lukeno94 (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keeep, despite not being release or charted it has received quite a fair bit of coverage both as part of the album and separate from the album. I created the page in an effort to help reduce the information on the parent album's page where people have complained that the article is getting to the stage where its slow to load due to the volume of information which is relatively high quality. It passed WP:GNG and it has been performed live several times at major events. The performance of the song received coverage as did it's composition. Per WP:NSONGS there is notability criteria which this article passes number one. Additionally the guideline states " a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" which also applies here. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  22:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How did it pass GNG? Just saying it does does not make it true. Just give me one article that gives it significant coverage and I will be happy to say keep. I don't even think a WP:Split keep is reasonable. The background is obviously already covered in the album article and if you paraphrased the quotes you should quite easily fit the last three in (some of it is already present). AIR corn (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am actually baffled as to what policy you (and others here) are citing by pointing to live performances as evidence of notability. This is just some made-up theory to have this article kept for all the wrong reasons, such as WP:ITSUSEFUL. Till  01:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not exactly; there's quite a difference between an article about a song that is covered by a fair amount of sources than a "list of all the phone numbers in New York". — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 01:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge. Where is the significant coverage??? Sources 1-7 are about the album/her past career. Sources 9-10 are liner notes. Source 11 contains one tiny line about this song, "the ticky breakbeats (Come Alive)". Source 12 contains three short sentences and nothing substantial. Source 13 is from Leona herself and therefore doesn't count. Source 14 contains the line ""I don't mind the pain," she confesses on 'Come Alive' over rumbling synths and breakbeats"... not significant in the slightest. Source 15 doesn't even mention "Come Alive". Source 16 has this: "but there's the obligatory drift into dubstep on Come Alive". The rest of the sources are from iTunes, Youtube, or other websites with no significant coverage. Till  00:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Also. WP:NSONG makes no mention of a song being performed live as an indicator of notability. Till  00:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Source 13 is from musicrooms.net, not leonalewismusic.com. – anemone projectors – 13:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * He means it's from her words, so it's irrelevant. Also, ref 13 should be replaced with this, as music rooms doesn't seem reliable. — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 14:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The sources, Music Rooms and Digital Spy, are both independent of Leona Lewis. – anemone projectors – 15:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 01:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to album. Aircorn's analysis of sources is correct and being performed live is not a convincing indicator of notability. Cavarrone (talk) 12:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article has a lot of references and well-cited for an album track. As long as there is enough material to show, keep it. --SuperHotWiki (talk) 07:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't keep articles based on their amount of references, we keep articles if its topic meets notability. And this one doesn't have any. Till  07:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Till, as long as it meets one of the four guidelines, it can stay: "Has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work." It meets this one. —  AARON  &bull; TALK   12:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * with respect Aaron days ago you were asked to provide exemples of multiple and non-trivial coverage about this song to rebut Aircorn's (and Till's) analysis of sources. Repeating again and again what the guideline says without providing evidences of how notability is met in this specific case is not a great argument. Cavarrone (talk) 12:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Because other people have provided it. —  AARON  &bull; TALK   12:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh where? Could you be more specific? Cavarrone (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Read this page and you will find out. Or, try reading the article and looking at the sources. —  AARON  &bull; TALK   14:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, your evasive non-response is pretty enlightening. Thank you. Cavarrone (talk) 12:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it's called being pro-active and doing it yourself. —  AARON  &bull; TALK   12:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's called inability to provide evidences for claims. Cavarrone (talk) 12:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why do I have to do as you say? I'm familiar with this article, I know what exists. You don't to know, then you look yourself, then maybe you would have a valid point here. You don't want to look because you don't want to find anything. End of. —  AARON  &bull; TALK   15:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviously I read both this discussion and the article and there is no sign of significant coverage, as I wrote in my vote's rationale. Others editors analyzed one by one every single reference listed in the article. As you insist in saying that this song received significant coverage, you were asked by three editors to show us some exemples and you refuse it. Your childish non-answers just make it patent that this coverage does not exist. Cavarrone (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So if you've done it already what are you asking me for? It's obvious from the size of the article that there is a lot of information about it. I've been through the article myself as well. If this song had charted you wouldn't have a problem with it (even though charting is not a requirement, which many people mistake it for). —  AARON  &bull; TALK   16:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect The article appears to have many sources, but most are either non-RS or only mention the song trivially in passing. Also, regardless of what others have claimed, being played live on TV does not make a song notable. LK (talk) 10:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You're basically saying that any mention of a song can't be used in articles, single or not. Hope you know that Critical reception and composition sections would be virtually non-existent if we all followed your opinion. —  AARON  &bull; TALK   12:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, he's saying that a song that have just trivial mentions here and there is not notable per WP standards. Cavarrone (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep – I've added two more sources to the "critical reception" section just now to the many that were already there. There's not a single source that address the subject in depth, but there are many sources that offer brief, non-trivial coverage, and taken together there is enough to meet WP:N guidelines. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 14:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess it comes down to the definition of trivial. Both of the new sources are album reviews with half a sentence mentions of this song. If this is the minimum requirement for a song to have an article then I feel there will not be many songs that will not meet it. AIR corn (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ... the implication being that what I added to the article was "trivia". I don't think it was. I expanded the "critical reception" section, which is fairly standard for song articles. As for the question of "there will not be many songs that will not meet it", I don't think that's even true for most of the songs on this very album (and Leona Lewis is rather popular and widely written about): I did multiple searches for "Leona Lewis" + "When It Hurts" (a track on the album) and there was just one very brief mention in a Billboard review, not enough for a standalone article in that case. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 12:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Those additions are certainly not significant coverage. Till  06:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that if those were the only sources then that would not be enough to meet the requirements of WP:N. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 04:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Significant coverage means that a topic is significantly discussed in multiple, reliable sources. It does not refer to a topic that is briefly mentioned in multiple sources which is then added up together. Till  11:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * comment there's been quite a few independent editors who've commented here that this album passes WP:GNG. User:Till has rebuked almost every keep comment and that's why this has dragged on. Seriously can we put this to rest. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  19:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I would say it was probably relisted because the keep arguments are not that strong. Apart from Paul Erik they have just said that it passes the criteria without explaining how it does. AIR corn (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * not being bias but i've seen plenty of recent AfDs close based purely on the number of keeps/merges/deleted. But I guess that's more a discussion about the process rather than this particular article. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  22:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So have I. I would not have been surprised if this had been closed as no consensus. AIR corn (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I was expecting a closure, not a relisting - the AFDs I see relisted are the ones with few or no comments. This one has loads. – anemone projectors – 22:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Afd is a weighing of consensus based on policy, regardless of how many people !voted keep. There are a plethora of reasons: a) "It was performed live"—a performance is a primary source, and quite frankly I am baffled as to how a performance would constitute significant coverage unless there was some sort of independent commentary. Therefore any !vote based on this reason would probably be discounted. b) It meets WP:GNG—The topic does not meet the GNG, as shown by the indepth analysis of the sources provided above. We have trivial mentions at best but nothing of "significant coverage", which is what GNG requires. The fact that editors can't find even one reliable source that significantly discusses this topic pretty much proves to me that this fails WP:N. c) It has lots of references—this isn't a convincing argument as none of these sources have the required amount of coverage to meet WP:N. Also @lilunique: you stated that the song meets GNG in your !vote, but when you were asked how it does, you couldn't even provide 1 decent reason. So don't complain about how this was relisted when you can't even address simple nomination concerns. Till  00:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a complaint I was just surprised to see it being re-listed. My keep vote contained a detailed ration. "Come Alive" has received coverage from multiple reliable sources both as a song on the album and as part of the album during reviews etc. It was performed several times which also received coverage and both the artist and critics spoke about the song a number of times. Per WP:NSONGS there is enough information from reliable third-party sources (which means not the artist's website, label etc) to produce a reasonable detailed article about the song and I also pointed out that given the relative size of the album's article there is sufficient scope to remove some of the information about the song. This latter bit has already been done. People are making their own interpretations of WP:GNG in this discussion. GNG does not state one source which discusses a subject for at length is more notable than multiple sources that discuss the subject in minute chunks. The way I look at it is, the song was performed several times thus giving people to a reason to search for it, there is significant information about its recording and production meaning an article can be constructed to cover lots of aspects about the song, and the album's page is already quite large so that would suggest that some independent articles might be required. Applying that to WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS the article at the moment is reasonably well detailed. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  13:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think there is a bigger problem here in that many editors claiming GNG do not understand what it means. For example you are saying that "GNG does not state one source which discusses a subject for at length is more notable than multiple sources that discuss the subject in minute chunks", which is wrong. Right at the top of WP:GNG it says that the coverage must be "significant" and then goes on to explain that this "is more than a trivial mention". In this case the debate comes down to whether album reviews that briefly mention the song are considered non-trivial. The guidelines at WP:NSONGS are even stricter as it says it must be the "subject" of these sources. So far only Paul Erik has really addressed the trivial issue in his keep comment. AIR corn (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Digital Spy 1 mentions the song was performed live and talks about its composition and origins, the album booklet details the recording information and personnel, Album Preview mentions the song in two sentences and talks about its production, here we find out that Faithless inspired the song and some more about the production, in this review the lyrics and production are commented on, and in this one once again the production is commented on. These sources especially qualify as non-trivial IMO. Finally the song was performed at Radio 1's Hackney Weekend, at a charity concert, on a national radio station and an acoustic performance was uploaded to her Vevo account. Whilst I agree that no single source covers the topic in heaps of detail, collectively there is coverage amongst all the sources (synergy) that produce a reasonably detailed article that covers both the conception and promotion of the song as a track from the album. If you compare page views for January, it was viewed 1,936 times, compared to Glassheart (song) (the other non-single from this album; though that one charted] which was viewed 2,419 times. Only around 500 views behind, I know page views aren't really an official factor for consideration but I do believe they put the article in context. We have NMUSIC for the exact reason that GNG can sometimes cause issues, its mention of "non-trivial coverage" throws things into disrepute in examples like this one where there is actually a reasonably detailed article constructed from coverage in multiple sources. Also if you read NSONGS, under the note for "subject of" it explains that subject of excludes mere mention of the song/single, in the examples above coverage goes beyond simply mentioning the song. It provides some information which is of detail/background. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  23:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Now that is a much better argument. Much, much better than simply asserting that it meets GNG. I felt I was one of the only editors that actually looked closely at the sources. I still disagree, but at least you have provided a line of thought that shows how you think it is notable and used examples of sources to back it up. AIR corn (talk) 05:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Really @lilnique.... that seems to contradict with your statements here and here. He/she explicitly said "the critical reception comments are part of wider album reviews and could be merged to the album's page", but no, that's definitely not the case here. I wonder why..... Till  04:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Till you really should stop being bitter because two of your GA articles got sent to AfD and the outcome was merge into the album. It was nothing personal and I stand by the fact that I didnt show bias. There is much less coverage for the two songs whcih you worked on. "Come Alive" has quite a bit of coverage as the main subject of a reference (i.e. articles specifically about "Come Alive" or mentioning "Come Alive" as a seperate body of work. It was performed multiple times, even at least once before the album came out. There is a more wider-ranging detailed article about "Come Alive" covering a greater scope of background about the song. Also you seem to consistantly skirt over the fact it was recommended that you create a section about the songs on Sweet 7 and that Glassheart is already a large page, thus concerted effort has been made to remove information about "Come Alive" as it was felt there was enough information instead to make an independent detailed article. You should also pipe down with the uncivilness, wikipedia advocates you be critical of the edits not the editor. Calling me a "hypocritcal fool" in the edit summary makes you come across as bitter. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  11:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't care about Heartbreak or Mess (I even changed my vote to merge). My problem is the double standards being applied here. If you don't want to be called that, don't act like it. Btw, it's incivility not 'uncivility'—not that it was, because I am stating a fact Till  14:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

 iComputer  SaysNo 23:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to Glassheart, per WP:GNG. The coverage is not more than a trivial mention.              Consideration of stand-alone existence (as a split from the album) is not solely limited to the WP:SIZERULE - however, that's close in this case (37 kB, 6329 words "readable prose size" for Glassheart)... but independent notability isn't established. -- Trevj (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm including the refs as an aid to qualifying my !vote: the article includes a number of refs, many of which are not relevant to establishing notability. Additionally, 4 5 new refs are included (which still don't contribute adequately either IMO, even though the 4Music one does address the subject directly, it doesn't do so in detail). Please don't remove refs from here unless a policy can be cited which explains why they shouldn't be included. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 05:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Glassheart. The article spends a lot of time discussing the album, as opposed to the song itself; so the amount of information needed to be merged into Glassheart is substantially lower. As per Till's argument of WP:GNG, the references used in the article refer to the song in its context as part of the album and not in its own right.
 * Firstly, five of the sentences in background talk solely about the album, while the rest are about the song. Secondly, how realistic is a merge? The Glassheart article is already 116kb and this article was created to, as Lil-unique already stated, split the information into a stand-alone article, as the album article was getting way to large. — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 04:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What about the "readable prose size", easily confirmed using User:Dr pda/prosesize? I make that 37 kB, per my comment above. -- Trevj (talk) 07:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not about how big the article currently is, it's about whether this song is notable enough to have a standalone article away from the parent album, which it isn't Till  07:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Trevj (talk) 09:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * , whilst no single reference makes explicit length mention of the song, collectively coverage is relatively detailed. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  12:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't see coverage which wasn't more than a trivial mention. Even the single source I found which directly addresses the subject only says that Lewis premiered a new track called Come Alive at the Hackney Weekender, surprising crowds with its dubstep direction. I admit to not really analysing the video sources; do they take a similar approach to the written sources, i.e. do they include some coverage of the song, as just one part of a longer piece? Or do they amount to less trivial mentions? I would expect that most of the other merge !voters probably accept that this song has the potential to meet our notability requirements... IMHO it just doesn't do so right now, per WP:TOOSOON. -- Trevj (talk) 12:59, 7 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.