Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forbidden Fruit (Noël Coward 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   keep. Closing early per WP:SNOW Mark Arsten (talk) 02:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Forbidden Fruit (Noël Coward song)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG ("Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material") Source 1 says nothing different that #2 or #3 already say. Sources 2 and 3 discuss the song; source 4 never mentions the song (in the quote), and source 5 trivially mentions the song, and incidental coverage is not coverage. ©  Tb hotch  ™ (en-2.5). 07:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Also fails WP:NSONGS as it never charted (impossible at its time), but it could be honored with an award any time later or be covered by another artist. ©  Tb hotch  ™ (en-2.5). 07:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ©   Tb hotch  ™ (en-2.5). 07:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per Tbhotch, even if they are book sources, the song lacks the significant coverage to warrant a standalone article per WP:GNG. Also fails the various points of WP:NSONGS.  STATic  message me!  07:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - to quote Noël Coward himself:

This nomination is another misuse of AfD process by User:Tbhotch. At the root of this nomination is an effort to keep Forbidden Fruit (J. Cole song) as the only "song" article of the name on Wikipedia to prevent it being titled with the name "J. Cole song" as if it was the only song of the name in existence when Wikipedia has coverage of 10 songs with this title.


 * It won't come as any surprise that of these 10 songs it is Noël Coward's first song which gets 105 mentions in Google Books. This AfD has nothing at all to do with refs like The Encyclopedia of the Musical Theatre 2001 - Page 436 "Dramatist, revue-writer, lyricist, performer and personality, Noel Coward made himself a special place in the theatre .. before long began writing and composing songs — of which "Forbidden Fruit" (1915) is the earliest surviving example ." and everything to do with a handful of pop music editors wanting to get songs into the "primary song" (song) spot. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Quoting Coward won't make the song notable ("...that are independent of the subject...") Also, Forbidden Fruit (song) RM is irrelevant here, it is like if I request the deletion of Kant, Kyrgyzstan because of this. Also this is not a misuse (and you will see this in a week). If an article fails WP:GNG any editor has the right to WP:AFD it. Now, rather than waste your time giving explanations why 2/5 references are significant coverage, start to say this at the article itself, because, using your link:


 * Sources that trivially mention the song:
 * Sources that mention this was Coward first song:
 * Sources that are not independent to the author:
 * False positive:


 * And those are just the first 20 links, I won't paste more as it is a waste of space. If you want the page to be kept the article must explain why it passes WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS, but mentions like this, sources related to Coward and several references saying that this was wis first song to be written are not coverage but a reason to apply this section. ©  Tb hotch  ™ (en-2.5). 08:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * request : I think the article speaks for itself but can I request the next editor to do something about the dark brown box Tbhotch has put round the other 10 songs. or at least have a lighter colour so the blue "show" is visible and something less aggressive than "Offtopic copypaste" such as "Forbidden Fruit (disambiguation)" or "Other Forbidden Fruit songs". Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think In ictu oculi has the better of this discussion.  I can't agree with the nominator's characterizations of the sources. And I can't agree that the encyclopedia would be improved by deleting this sourced article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I added another ref that has a substantial discussion of the song.  The song is notable, as it was selected by Coward for his songbooks, performed in a film about Coward's life, and discussed in numerous sources. Citron and Parker both write that the song encouraged Coward to continue songwriting.  The article cites reliable sources and gives some good history and analysis of the song. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Noël Coward song. I think what's going on here is that User:In ictu oculi is going around creating short articles for various classic songs, which is entirely laudable. In a lot of those cases there are existing articles Song Name (song), often referring to somewhat emphemeral recent songs, so all this may be fallout from that. Herostratus (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Noel Coward's first song, and referenced in quite a lot of media.  I was expecting to vote the other way until I read the discussion and the article. Neonchameleon (talk) 17:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are 22 1916 songs, 854 2013 songs and 1249 2013 singles. Something is wrong with the numbers and this entry goes some way to addressing that balance. Oh, and notability has been established too. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep – Very surprised to see this nominated for deletion. Coward thought highly enough of the song to include it in his collection of lyrics published in the 1960s, and as part of the finale of Cowardy Custard (a 1970s Coward show, revived recently) it was tremendously effective. (I must dig out details of both and add them, when I have time.) Tim riley (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the version I nominated to deletion. The question is why IIO created that version and not the current version. ©  Tb hotch  ™ (en-2.5). 01:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Not the question I'd ask. I'd ask why Tbhotch supposes that a promising start such as the one linked to in the line above should be strangled at birth when it has clear potential, now fulfilled, to be a fine article. The other point worth making at this point, I think, is that as the silly idea of deleting this article has been voted down, we need to rationalise the naming of similar articles. The title of Forbidden Fruit (song) plainly needs to be adjusted to something like "Forbidden Fruit (Jermaine Cole song)" so as not to lead readers to one article rather than another when there is no pressingly primary one. Tim riley (talk) 01:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You wouldn't ask it, but I'd do it, considering IIO's constant creation of pages that initially lack of notability, and it is proved until they are at AFD. Also Forbidden Fruit (song) RM is irrelevant to this AFD discussion, as this is not RM and it has been moved. ©  Tb hotch  ™ (en-2.5). 09:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Tbhotch, we've had this discussion before in several forums and you have been told by several other editors that notability is determined by what is notable. Your "that initially lack of notability" (?) comment illustrates that you don't understand this. As for Lingdian I consider that as created it already passed WP:IDEALSTUB in providing a basis for other editors (and myself at my leisure) to work on in translating what was a major Chinese band of the 1990s. The 3 sources given: China With a Cut: Globalisation, Urban Youth and Popular Music, World Music Volume 2 Latin and North America Caribean India Asia and Encyclopedia of Contemporary Chinese Culture were enough of a starting point to meet WP:IDEALSTUB's requirement of indicating notability from sources, but equally important providing enough base for the article to be expanded - even without reference to zh.wp. Following me and placing speedys and AfDs hasn't so far resulted in any of the articles you've speedied or AfDed being deleted and has just consumed editor time. We have already had this discussion at Articles for deletion/Applause (Bonnie Franklin song) and I would suggest that you now let go of this. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What is this? Seriously? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Notability seems to be established both because it was Coward's first successful songwriting attempt and because he himself attached significance to it. The weakness of the argument that the numerous mentions of it do not go into detail is that these make it all the more likely that people will want to look it up for more information, which is what an encyclopaedia article is for. Guidelines exist to help us sort out things that people are reasonably likely to want to find here from things less likely. That is why we have articles on famous people, books, songs etc, not because they are necessarily more deserving of being remembered. --AJHingston (talk) 01:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Herostratus, thanks. FWIW User:Rushton2010 made a similar comment here on a previous AfD with similar characteristics, where a hit 1970 Broadway song conflicted with 2013 Applause (Lady Gaga song). I believe the problem is a combination of WP:RECENT and lack of use of Google Books when assessing how really "unambiguous" the latest mp3 downloads are when compared to 300 or so years of popular music recorded in books. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems to be quite notable, but it would be nice if some online sources were added. Raykyogrou0  ( Talk ) 07:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ray, a lot of the sources are online at Google Books, but In Ictu needs to link them in the refs. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ssilvers, fine sure, but please be aware that Google Books stock deprecates and access from different countries to different books varies. However additional to hardwired citation the link can be added, yes. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep clearly notable, but as per Ray sources should be linked where available. Blethering  Scot  18:28, 4 December 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.