Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glorious (Foxes 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 as already implemented, to the album j⚛e deckertalk 02:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Glorious (Foxes song)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence that this may meet WP:GNG as all references are primary. Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON? Laun chba  ller  18:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to her article. No reason to exist as a stand alone article today as there are no secondary sources to establish notability. It started as a redirect and someone just fluffed it up. I probably would have tried to just boldly revert it first, per common outcomes. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  18:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm too much of a pussy. The only reason I didn't do so is because I actually came from a reliable source - This Week's Fresh Music Top 20, which contains what they call lozenges (captions) and aired it with one. Irritatingly, this song's lozenge didn't have anything wiki-worthy, so I'm going to give it until Friday - when next week's is first broadcast - and then redirect.--  Laun  chba  ller  18:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The episode did not even mention it, thus I've gone ahead with the redirection.-- Laun  chba  ller  23:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment Although I agree that at present the article has no reason to exist, it will probably be recreated once the song charts, as it will include a referenced chart positions table. But it's unlikely to expand much further than this, leaving it as a stub, as indeed all the articles for Foxes other singles are. Which brings us onto a wider issue – it seems to be the case that ANY charting single is assigned its own article these days, when a large number of them don't merit it: the chart positions are already available on the article Foxes discography and I can't see that there is any other important information that doesn't rely on primary references. You'd be hard pressed to make a case for retaining the other three articles relating to Foxes' singles, and a great many other singles by other artists as well. At some point there might have to be some revision of the stub-class and unclassified articles at WP:SONGS and some judicious pruning undertaken. Richard3120 (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Richard, the problem is that we have policy to deal with. In an oversimplifed nutshell, it says we can have an article for any song that charts a major chart, and songs that don't shouldn't exist or become redirects.  Personally, I think we have too many stub articles as well, but policy supports this and any attempt to change the policy is likely to meet with strong resistance from people who only write these stubbed little articles, which so happens to be a lot of people.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  15:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Dennis, I totally agree with you and have come across this resistance myself. I know it is difficult to change policy, but I made my comment because I was wondering if it might be possible to revisit such articles a few years down the line and if there have been no changes or views in a long time, editors might take the decision to remove or redirect the article to a parent album. As most of the articles we are talking about are created by editors eager to be "on the spot" with the latest releases, I suspect many of them lose interest in the articles once they are created and move on to the next new thing. Perhaps this would result in a lot of time-consuming PRODs over the years, but I just thought it worth suggesting as a consideration for the future. Richard3120 (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Just as an addendum, the WP:SONGS quality levels need revising anyway as some of the articles are clearly in the wrong class – as an example, see Le Freak, which is clearly better than its current stub-class (probably C-class) and unquestionably a song of significant importance worthy of an article of its own. I may have to go through some well known songs when I get time and reassess their class. But I digress, this is a debate for the WikiProject Songs page, not here. Richard3120 (talk) 15:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:NSONG specifically says that charting is not enough if there isn't independent coverage of the song (as opposed to coverage from an album review that hits all the album's songs). From what Dennis Brown says, there is no significant coverage, so a delete or redirect would therefore be in order. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete or Redirect: per WP:NSONG and WP:GNG: there is no independent coverage of the song cited, and simply charting would not be sufficient to establish notability for any song. Since the song hasn't even been released yet, merely being a planned single is clearly inadequate. (The redirect would more appropriately go to album article, where it did prior to this article superseding it, rather than to the artist article.) BlueMoonset (talk) 20:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, to the album not to her, thank you, I had a brain spasm. Just as we would direct the album to her if the album wasn't notable: redirect to the next stage up.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  21:54, 25 July 2014 (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.