Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holidays (Meghan Trainor featuring Earth, Wind & Fire 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. North America1000 09:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Holidays (Meghan Trainor featuring Earth, Wind & Fire song)

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

Fails WP:NSONGS. While the song seems to have made some component charts (not official national charts), there isn't any coverage from reliable, secondary sources. Today, while reliable, is an NBC show and doesn't count as a secondary source for coverage of a performance on another NBC show. NØ 13:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete, never charted and no coverage outside of the one performance. I was looking into NBC, they don't own the record label she sings for, Sony does. It's not cross promotion having her on the show, so less of a primary source. Oaktree b (talk) 13:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - If the article survives this process, its title should be swapped with Holidays (Meghan Trainor song), which is currently a redirect to the parent album. All that disambiguation is unnecessary and awkward, and there would no confusion with other things at Holiday (disambiguation). See the article's infobox too. (This is not a comment on the song's notability.) ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 17:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect to A Very Trainor Christmas. Little to no coverage about the song outside of album reviews. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 17:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. Seems to meet WP:GNG, so NSONG is not necessary. Note that I saw this page creation in the new pages feed and reviewed it. When the nominating user changed the page to a redirect, I figured I'd put the investigation I did during the new page review to use to add sources and restore the page. I found:
 * There's approximately 100 words of SIGCOV dedicated to the song, published 2 years after the song, in a biography of the band Earth Wind & Fire, published by University Press of Mississippi, titled Do You Remember? Celebrating Fifty Years of Earth, Wind & Fire
 * There are probably a 100 of the band's songs covered in the biography, it does not impart individual notability to all of them as this does not constitute standalone coverage. The one line about how "the song embodies EWF's classic sound, with pulsating horns and a funky bassline" can be extremely comfortably accomodated on the album article.--NØ 04:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Just because an independent, reliable source covers a 100 of a band's songs does not prevent it from imparting notability from a particular song if the coverage of that song is significant enough. Rlendog (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The Hollywood Life article is about 150 words of SIGCOV of various aspects of a performance (with further coverage of the album, not counted in the word count)
 * The Hollywood Life is a pathetic and unreliable tabloid imo that should never be used as a source. Shocklingly, one user at RSN considered it reliable but even that discussion seems to have concluded it should not be used to gauge notability.--NØ 04:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The Today.com article is a few hundred words of SIGCOV addressing visual aspects of different performances of the song, including a music video, and does seem to be independent of the subject of the article (the song).
 * I did encounter other short coverage beyond trivial that I didn't reference in the article. &mdash;siro&chi;o 18:31, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe I have already covered why the Today source does not count as a secondary source for the purposes of notability, for their coverage of a performance on another NBC show.--<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 04:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree that Today does not count as a secondary source for this song. The song is not owned by NBC and so Today is a secondary source with respect to coverage of the song. Rlendog (talk) 14:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. Due to article corresponding to Notability (music) with said song's ranking on the US Holiday Digital Song Sales chart along with Canadian Adult Contemporary Songs chart. Hence song is well in accordance with Notability (music) in being ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. What's more the song has been independently released as a single by Meghan Trainor featuring Earth, Wind & Fire, who are both two very notable musical artists.Scriber88Talk 19:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well Holidays was of course released as a single, a fact that's firstly been verified and corroborated via Meghan Trainor - Holidays, the song's music video. What's this has been further substantiated via People https://people.com/music/meghan-trainor-releases-holiday-music-video-earth-wind-fire/, Entertainment Tonight, https://etcanada.com/news/716993/meghan-trainor-gets-festive-for-holidays-music-video/ and Page six https://pagesix.com/2020/12/03/earth-wind-fire-singer-says-band-doesnt-have-groupies-anymore/. Song is also notable having over 4.4 million views on YouTube whilst being critically acclaimed by GQ https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/culture/article/christmas-songs-2020-ranked, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution https://www.ajc.com/life/music-blog/music-notes-this-year-we-need-a-little-christmas-music-more-than-ever/C3ZPP5XPMVEI7DQREJKRRZGRBQ/, The Spokesman-Review https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2020/nov/26/its-dolly-parton-carrie-underwood-meghan-trainor-l/ and AllMusic https://www.allmusic.com/album/a-very-trainor-christmas-mw0003422402.
 * Holidays is undoubtedly in accord with Wikipedia's guidelines for notability and what not. Certainly the song and article should be continually maintained in soing to offer an illustration of such notability. Scriber88 (talk) 06:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Neither of the charts you have mentioned are "national or significant music or sales charts". They are component charts which could do with a mention on the album article. Also see WP:NOTINHERITED for arguments to avoid during a deletion discussion.--<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 04:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <b style="color:#F00">D</b><b style="color:#F60">u</b><b style="color:#090">s</b><b style="color:#00F">t</b><b style="color:#60C">i</b>*Let's talk!* 13:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <b style="color:blue; text-shadow:cyan 0.0em 0.0em 0.1em;">CycloneYoris</b> <b style="color:purple">talk!</b> 19:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: One of the keep votes above is the creator of the article and the other "restored" it before this AfD. The pile-on keep votes with flawed arguments should be weighted accordingly.--<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 04:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * MaranoFan, I think it's predictable that an article creator would arguing for keeping an article they created in a deletion discussion. But they can participate in AFDs just like any editor. I don't see that their work on an article discounts the argument they are making in a discussion. I disagree when in some other AFDs an article creator's comments are tagged as if that means they are less important than other people's opinions. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 22:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.