Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fascination (David Bowie 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 to redirect. Daniel (talk) 01:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Fascination (David Bowie song)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Bowie's biographers don't give too much info about this album track. Nicholas Pegg states that it's notable for being the first published credit of the then-unknown Luther Vandross, but something like that could easily be put into the album article. I could expand it with what I can, but before I start that process I first wanted to see if others think this should be redirected to the album article, as I don't want to spend time expanding an article only for it to be deleted later on. – zmbro (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the album.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 06:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:37, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To analyse the proposed sourcing by Rlendog.
 * Redirect to Young Americans. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - I am seeing multiple books with significant coverage of the song, meeting GNG (and NSONG). Rlendog (talk) 13:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:48, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If we use the rationale that books have "significant coverage" there could be an article for every single one of his tracks; both Pegg and O'Leary by themselves have info on every track (and Doggett from '69–'80). But the point of this nomination is to answer, "does this have enough info to warrant its own article?" Personally, I don't believe so. Then again, I did expand "Soul Love" awhile ago and that's only at 12k bytes.
 * I'm just trying to be realistic here. Bowie is one of those artists who could honestly have an article for every song, as he has multiple biographers who cover a good majority (mentioned above). However, if it hasn't been covered, was never a single, never charted, or anything like that, does it warrant its own article? Like I said in the nomination, I could go into "Fascination" and expand it as much as I can, but I'd rather wait and see if others think it should be redirected, as I don't want to spend hours of my time expanding it, only for it to be redirected a year from now. That's my two cents at least. – zmbro (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with all of Bowie's songs having articles if they all have significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Every Beatles' song has an article, for example.  I think (though I am not certain) that every U2 song, at least through the most of their career, has an article.  Most Bob Dylan and John Lennon songs have articles, and the remainder (at least through 2001 for Dylan) easily can.  There are a few artists for whom every song meets our notability criteria and there is no reason that those songs cannot or should not have articles if someone has to write one.  If this song meets our notability guidelines (and it does), the fact that many other David Bowie songs are notable is not a valid deletion reason.  And if you expand the article and someone tries to redirect it I for one will defend the article vigorously, and will have the sources to demonstrate its notability in accordance with our guidelines. Rlendog (talk) 00:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * One more point. Although it really should not make a difference with respect to Wikipedia guidelines and policies, this song does of course have a degree of notability beyond a run of the mill David Bowie song (even though a run of the mill Bowie song may well be notable).  That of course is the Luther Vandross connection.  And this song - unlike other Bowie songs - gets coverage in sources that are primarily about Luther Vandross.  As a result, even if you completely ignored any sources that are primarily about Bowie (which is certainly not mandated by our guidelines) there may be enough remaining coverage to meet our notability guidelines.  Certainly the coverage in Looking for Leroy: Illegible Black Masculinities would qualify.  There are several other sources on Vandross I was able to find on Google, but those are less significant, which is why I can only say that completely ignoring Bowie sources this song only "may" meet our notability guidelines, but given that the topic is almost 50 years old there may well be sources that are not accessible on Google.  But of course we do not have to completely ignore sources that are primarily about Bowie. Rlendog (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's actually a great point I didn't think about. This song is Vandross's first publishing credit in his entire career, and I never once considered Vandross's biographies. If this one doesn't get redirected would you consider expanding it a bit? So it's at least not a stub. – zmbro (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I can make some additions. Rlendog (talk) 20:29, 17 July 2021 (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.