Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dear Reader (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 redirect to Midnights. (non-admin closure) ASTIG 😎🙃 06:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Dear Reader (song)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Note: This is not for literal "deletion" but also for other viable options such as "merge", "redirect", etc. Whereas the other Midnights tracks by Taylor Swift satisfy notability requirements (i.e. covered in third-party sources, appearing on charts--a lot of them, and getting certifications), this track does not stand out in terms of notability. The existing material is not enough to guarantee a standalone article. Ippantekina (talk) 06:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ippantekina (talk) 06:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Midnights: What reliable coverage is on the page is all about the album generally, and the only material specifically about this song is from unreliable sources such as Genius and Tunebat. Unless more reliable coverage specific to this song is found, I don't see a notability pass. The charting alone shouldn't be worth much given other songs from the album had even broader, more impressive chart runs, meaning it doesn't really stand out for that reason. QuietHere (talk) 12:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Midnights per WP:NSONGS when the only trustworthy publications that give this song more than a brief mention are album reviews or pieces that focus on a whole set of its bonus tracks. Chart peaks are irrelevant here. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Midnights as per arguments above.  ℛonherry  ☘  16:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Midnights. Fails WP:NSONG per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Midnights per all previous points. Has only gotten brief mentions and basically no coverage on its own.  Ss  112   10:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Firstly, WP:NSONG states that being "ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. (Note again that this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable.)" The topic has indeed met this criterion (see here). Secondly, the topic has received significant coverage. Although news articles aren't solely about the song, they still provide more than just a passing mention meaning that WP:GNG is met (see insider & indiependent.co.uk). - GA Melbourne (talk) 23:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If all of a song's coverage is in the context of being part of the album, then generally that's the best way to portray it on Wikipedia too. It seems like virtually all sourcing present is just cherry-picked mentions from album coverage. Can you point to coverage that shows independent coverage/notability? Sergecross73   msg me  18:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Too meet GNG, "independent coverage/notability" is not required, rather "significant coverage" is required which "is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." - GA Melbourne (talk) 23:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Right, what I'm talking about is more related to WP:MERGEREASON. Things can meet the GNG and still be merged. (Though the Insider and the Independent is an exceedingly weak case for meeting the GNG too. Hopefully you have more than just that...) Sergecross73   msg me  00:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The current coverage in the Independent and Insider are weak and rather cherry-picked. Also per NSONGS it seems forgot this bit: "Note again that this (chart positions) indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable." Ippantekina (talk) 03:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * By that logic, you could argue that all songs on Midnights shouldn't have articles (all songs in the standard version do). Every song there is referenced in articles that are about the album, not the song in particular. If that were the case, then basically only singles would have their own articles, which is not how it works. Dontuseurrealname (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Another thing that I forgot to mention is that I actually had a draft that was declined for this same reason. It was a draft for the song "Daddy Issues" by The Neighbourhood, but the only mentions were passively (e. g. referring to the song in conjunction with other songs, or mentioning it without going into depth). Dontuseurrealname (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No, songs like "You're On Your Own, Kid", "Snow on the Beach", "Labyrinth", "Mastermind" have sufficient third-party coverage (i.e. sources that discuss these tracks on their own and not part of album reviews--you can verify this in the articles). Others like "Midnight Rain" or "Vigilante Shit" appear on 10-15 charts, received certifications, and breaking into the top 10 of the Hot 100 is a notable feat. This track "Dear Reader" is a bonus and its chart performance is negligent compared to the rest of the album. What's more, the third-party coverage is not helping in this case. Ippantekina (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect per my own comments above. Sergecross73   msg me  12:11, 6 February 2023 (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.