Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gravity (Sara Bareilles 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Gravity (Sara Bareilles song)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non-notable song. Fails WP:MUSIC. Sum mer PhD (talk) 23:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: Nominator has not conducted WP:BEFORE, and considering that each of the artist's other singles are notable, it's a reasonably likely that information exists on the song p  b  p  02:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment, neutral, leaning keep. How have you determined that nominator did not conduct a before check?  The fact that the other songs are notable have no bearing on the argument, as notability is not inherited.  If the song is in fact notable, provide refs or a stronger argument, but a conclusitory statement without any evidence to support it is not worth much to a closing admin.   GregJackP   Boomer!   03:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  p  b  p  02:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. p  b  p  02:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - We have two issues here: notability and sufficient material for a reasonably detailed article. Most songs are not notable. "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." I have been unable to find any indication that any of these apply. All of Bareilles' notable singles pass this criteria (save River (Joni Mitchell song) where Bereilles in a mere mention in the article). "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article." The only sourced material in this article is that there was a promotional video. Bereilles' notable songs meet this criterion with 10 - 18 sources. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Remember, an article being short or poorly written isn't a reason for deletion. If there are sources out there, the general consensus will almost always end up as keep  p  b  p  05:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." WP:NSONG - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 06:30, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There is ample material to grow this.  D r e a m Focus  07:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep There is ample coverage of this song to be found. I'll be working on the article now to expand and reference it.  Please follow WP:BEFORE in the future.  Doing a quick Google news archive search or two isn't that difficult.   D r e a m Focus  07:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. As I have stated, I researched the song and found nothing substantial. I do not appreciate the repeated, groundless assertions to the contrary. The members of the "Article Rescue Squad" are certainly welcome to disagree with my opinion of the depth of coverage and the notability guidelines. They are not welcome to repeatedly assume bad faith.
 * I see we now have two brief mentions: concert reviews with similar coverage of numerous non-notable songs. We also have someone performed it once on American Idol, a far cry from "independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups". The song still fails WP:MUSIC and the article is still well short of being a "reasonably detailed article". - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * a) I'm not, nor ever was, nor ever will be, a member of ARS, b) Saying we've found different results from you isn't assuming bad faith, c) WP:MUSIC isn't the only relevant guideline in play here.  p  b  p  20:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Nominator has not conducted WP:BEFORE" as you noted in your first comment is very easy to construe as your assuming bad faith, unless you have some magic ball to determine that he did not check anything. It was that comment that caused me to question you initially on this, even though I believe that the article should probably be retained.  If you misspoke, that is certainly understandable, I do it all the time, but just flat out stating that he did not do WP:BEFORE is kind of harsh.   GregJackP   Boomer!   22:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Saying that you found different results is not an assumption of bad faith. Having multiple people state that he obviously did not follow WP:BEFORE, as both you and Dream Focus did, can be interpreted as accusing the person of creating this nomination in bad faith, especially when it is in what can easily be seen as a condescending tone, which is what I'm pretty sure the nom is referring to.  Since the majority of the articles that are found when performing searches are not substantial coverage, its just as easy to assume that the nominator did, in fact, perform WP:BEFORE, and simply concluded that the sources were not substantial enough to support an article, which is a very common occurance on AFDs.  Simply because one disagrees about the usefulness of said sources or managed to locate a better source, does not mean its very civil to declare that the Nom was not following proper AFD procedure by not performing WP:BEFORE.  Rorshacma (talk) 22:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Of the three sources that you have added thus far, for the first Highbeam article, here is a non-Highbeam version of the article for those who are interested. Is their any objection to replacing the source you already added as a highbeams account-needing link to this one?  And the second one, did you make a mistake and link the wrong article, by chance?  Because the blurb for the second one that is visible to non-Highbeam account holders, which the article says is a review by Shirley Binkley, looks instead to be about a certain Lois Chapman, and her work on brochures.  Despite the abundance of hits on gnewes archives, I'm a little torn on whether the article should be kept or redirected to the artist's page.  A lot of the articles that come up in the archive, including the ones already added to the article, are extremely trivial mentions.  IE, a one liner describing its appearance in an American Idol episode, one line "reviews" that mention a few words about the song in articles that are about her larger body of work in general, etc.  This article from the BBC, however, does seem to give sufficient notability as it appears to describe how a video of "Gravity" that became a hit online was the key factor early in her career that allowed her to break out.  Its the only source I've found that actually talks somewhat extensively about the song rather than breif one-liners, but does have me leaning towards a Weak Keep.  Rorshacma (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep – Coverage includes a review in Billboard, which I've added just now. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 16:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Billboard reviews pretty much any released single by a notable artist. Our notability guideline, WP:MUSIC, is considerably more restrictive. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTABILITY says article subjects are notable if they meet the general notability guideline WP:GNG or it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline such as WP:MUSIC. It doesn't have to meet both.  So your nomination and rejection of the coverage I found and added was possible because you overlooked that, not because you didn't bother doing a Google news search.   D r e a m Focus  22:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: Holy moly, I can't believe the number of mentions one can find about this song. A fair number are passing references, but when even the First Lady name-checks this song in particular, I couldn't help but make a comment.  And I may hate American Idol but when you see a song is being name-checked in articles re the show repeatedly , you know the song must be very popular.--Milowent • hasspoken  01:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - The Wikipedia article takes a child-like approach to covering the topic. However, that doesn't mean the topic fails WP:GNG. Rather, there are plenty of sources discussing the topic, one of the earliest ones being U-WIRE July 23, 2007, which notes, "Bareilles performed "Gravity," a wrenching song about love's complexity and uncertainty, at Spring Sing, and the song -- as well as others from "Little Voice" -- has the potential of being featured in a future movie or advertisement." Another 2007 one is this. Some more coverage includes Billboard March 7, 2009, Bangor Daily News July 13, 2010, Tulsa World June 19, 2012, Western Gazette August 9, 2012. There's over 150 news articles that mention the topic and within those there's enought reliable source material for the topic to meet WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:53, 23 September 2012 (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.