Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legendary Lovers


 * 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. SOME of these articles should undergo individual AFD discussions. The discussion does not clearly distinguish between those that should be kept, and those that should be deleted - and arguably, there's a clear mixture. the panda ₯’ 23:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Legendary Lovers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

These all fail both WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. No significant coverage from any reliable third-party sources independent of the album. Should be redirected to Prism (Katy Perry album) or deleted. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. The nominator should have pointed out that here we have three articles that were 'Good Articles' until the nom delisted them and another that was previously kept at AfD in January. --Michig (talk) 06:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My mistake for not doing so. "Choose Your Battles" had previously been closed as a "no consensus", but is being renominated for deletion since all the "keep" votes were WP:ILIKEIT, WP:LOSE, and WP:MERCY, which are all arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. The other three were delisted from GA as they were too limited in their coverage, particularly in commercial aspects. Coverage from album reviews doesn't count as notable coverage, and neither does input from those affiliated with the songs' creation. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect: To be honest, my previous comments have been partial on the subject (WP:ILIKEIT) and a bit on the WP:MERCY side as well, as I did most work on these pages. With that being said, I have read the notability guidelines for songs again and they clearly point out that this article shouldn't be here.
 * "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability." → Unless (at least two or three) sources that clearly talk about the song and not just as part of the album are added to this article, the article has to be redirected.
 * "Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself" → Regardless of the amount of "keeps" or "redirects/deletes", the strength of the evidence for notability is taken in consideration far more than just the votes.
 * Charts don't prove notability, to be honest. The last time this AfD was opened, Aaron (Calvin999), gave the example of "Lovebird" for only having charted in one country, just like this track. But far more sources are on that article: I can count at least nine solely regarding the song or something related to it (performances, music videos, etc...).
 * What information is here that can't be included in Prism? I'm actually working on the Composition section of the album right now, and after reading Love. Angel. Music. Baby., maybe some critical feedback (limited though) to each song can be written on Prism itself.
 * Remember that I was the one that expanded the articles and contributed substantially to them (not saying that Giacobbe and XXSNUGGUMSXX didn't contribute as well) but it's just so that people don't think I'm trying to wreck other people's works.  prism  △ 14:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Composition info and critics' views can definitely be included in the Prism article, though yes it shouldn't go into excessive detail. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep all, GNG. They are fine as Wikipedia articles, and they provide details that an album article would not offer.. They should be allowed to exist, and even grow, and maybe even be reach Good article status one day. Sometimes we are too quick to zap articles. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually no, the reliable third-party sources that mention them don't give enough coverage to meet GNG. They only give short descriptions of the tracks.  "They are fine as Wikipedia articles" is essentially an WP:ILIKEIT argument, which is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Same with WP:VALINFO ("they provide details that an album article would not offer"). Also, "they should be allowed to grow" is essentially an "I need more time to work on it" argument, which falls under the WP:MERCY section of arguments to avoid. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep all (especially Legendary Lovers). Simply put, they do pass WP:GNG. There are a few of the references that only mention the songs in passing, but there are also others, like this one, that mention the songs in more detail, which covers the "Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." criteria. A review doesn't have to have its complete focus on a single song. I completely agree with Another Believer above; there are way too many users who have a deletionist attitude towards articles. P.S. I will not be replying to anyone who feels the need to chime in on someone else's !vote in an effort to change their mind; it's not gonna happen. — Status  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 03:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Even if you won't reply, Another Believer's vote consisted of WP:ILIKEIT, WP:MERCY, and WP:VALINFO, which are all arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. These actually do not pass WP:GNG because the every reliable third-party source that talks about them (self-description from those affiliated with creation does not count as notable coverage) only discusses them briefly. One paragraph alone isn't exactly "significant coverage". Even if they did discuss them in more than just a paragraph each, and while song doesn't have to be sole focus, you've overlooked how WP:NSONGS states Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The last point is the only thing I will respond to. It says that in the context of notability. And right after that, it clearly states: "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." There is clearly enough content on the articles for them to exist. In deleting these articles you would lose the information, there is no way any of this information would be merged into the album article. In additiona, it's most likely than one or more of these songs will eventually become singles (just like "Birthday" was), so more information will eventually become available. A year from now I might feel differently, but for now, I feel that the articles can continue to grow. — Status  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 03:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:LOSE and WP:VALINFO ("In deleting these articles you would lose the information") are both arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Expanding the article beyond a stub also doesn't make up lack of notability. WP:NSONGS indicates that song articles need to have enough information to expand beyond a stub AND have more than just brief coverage independent of their parent album ("a standalone article should still satisfy the aforementioned criteria"). "One or more of these songs will eventually become singles" is a case of WP:CRYSTAL. Essentially, looks like a case of WP:MASK. "I feel that the articles can continue to grow" is essentially a WP:MERCY argument, and WP:MERCY is also an argument to avoid. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You can list all the essays you want, it's not going to change anything. — Status  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 04:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:ONLYESSAY is also an argument to avoid, whether you change your mind or not. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I fail to see where that was my reasoning for the article to be kept? The closing admin is the one who determines whether or not my !vote has a legitimate reason or not, not you (I'm sure you will be able to find an essay for that statement as well), so I don't understand why you feel the need to try to undermine another user's opinion that differs from your own. That is all. — Status  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 04:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It isn't so much "undermining" as it is pointing out when arguments made are ones to avoid or when arguments use essays/guidelines/policies incorrectly. Arguments listed here are regarded as weak arguments. It is true that songs do not have to be the sole subject of articles, and it is also true that I alone don't determine legitimacy, but the coverage available is too limited per WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS (one paragraph isn't regarded as "significant coverage"). I'm also sorry if you felt undermined, though it more than anything is else my frustration with guidelines/policies being misused/disregarded. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the reason he might be upset is that you have been around long enough to know that you are mispresenting policy and guidelines in your argument. Nothing about the sentence you quoted justifies articles about non-notable things, that sentence is an argument for not creating articles about notable things. If you are going to argue for retention, it would be nice if you would actually make your arguments in the context of the policies as written.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete:The difficulty with the argument put forth by Status is that ""Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album."" doesn't mean anything like what he is using it to justify. It doesn't say "regardless of whether it's notable, we should cover it if we can write a great big article", it says "don't write trivially small articles, even if the topic is technically notable."
 * In this particular case, these are precisely the kind of articles that WP:NSONGS was written to prevent. There isn't coverage of these songs outside of the context of the albums. Thus, the songs do not meet the WP:GNG: we have always given deference to the subject specific guidelines in terms of how to interpret "significant coverage". In this case, WP:NSONGS is quite explicit: "If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created." All of the sources in these articles are in the context of album reviews: independent articles should not exist.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect all to Prism (Katy Perry album), or selectively merge if needed. As users Prism and Kww note, coverage of these songs appears limited to their placement on the album. Insufficient evidence, in my view, of independent notability or significant coverage to meet WP:GNG.  Gongshow   talk  16:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, or redirect all to Prism (Katy Perry album) – I've already gone about this in a previous AFD, and my general stance remains unchanged. A couple of chart positions and an article body generally cobbled together from pieces of selected Prism album reviews and the like are insufficient in determining notability. I can see these articles existing in summarized form as short sections in the "Composition" section of the parent Prism article, but for now I don't think there's enough significant coverage outside of said album reviews to warrant stand-alone song articles. Holiday56 (talk) 16:43, 11 May 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.