Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moments (One Direction 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. Notability is not a requirement for GA and so it is entirely possible for an article that is (correctly) rated GA to be deleted. So whether or not an article is GA, or whether it should not be a GA because of failing a GA criteria like NOR, doesn't matter at AfD. In terms of the deletion discussion here, there is a consensus that sourcing exists that support notability for this song. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Moments (One Direction song)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I am nominating this article for deletion because it shows a lack of notability per WP:NSONGS. Its coverage comes from only album reviews. Some very low chart entries. One interview with Ed Sheeran (song-writer) which falls under the "other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work" umbrella. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep This article is currently a GA status, surely it's notability was scrutinized when it was reviewed. Despite low chart entries, it charted on 3 different national charts and received Gold certification in Australia. That alone means it meets WP:NSONGS. JayJayWhat did I do? 05:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Chart entries means that a song might be notable, not that it is. So it doesn't mean that meets WP:NSongs. Furthermore, GA status doesn't grant any song notability. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The 3 GA reviews, one of which the article failed, are on the talk page and it can be seen that sourcing simply didn't enter into it at all, except for the failing review. Uncle G (talk) 02:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Up All Night--album reviews may be sufficient for standalone song articles if they discuss the song specifically in-depth (usually within a paragraph). For this song, however, album reviews only each cover one-two sentences regarding this song, which turns out to be trivial coverage. Charting and certifications are only cherry on the top, not the determinant factor of notability. 05:41, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That is not to mention that the Entertainment Weekly and the MTV News sources, which I did a small spotcheck, do not mention this particular song anywhere. A potential case of WP:OR. HĐ (talk) 05:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relisting. There's still no clear consensus on whether WP:GNG or WP:NSONG should be followed.
 * Redirect to Up All Night, as the reviews are in the context of album reviews which doesn't establish notability per WP:NSONG. The only thing that seems to make the song distinct from coverage of the rest of the album is that it was written by Ed Sheeran, but the sources for that are not enough to satisfy notability on their own, as much of it is as a trivial mention in discussing the group's debut album or a passing mention in an interview by Sheeran. Nangears (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Wow, I've just been thinking lately about the issue of quality-assessed articles being AfDed and redirected on the basis of narrow interpretations of SNGs, and my regret in abetting it, and I run into this. Suppose it's time to put my money where my mouth is. The thing about notability guidelines (G or S) is that their intent is to provide a shortcut for "Could you write a decent article about this?". Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources is a line drawn not because it sounds cool or respectable but because an article without that is going to be either a pile of puffery or a very sad stub. The extension of this is that if an article is not only 'decent' but 'in good enough shape to pass our quality review processes', there are three possibilities: it has enough coverage, it's a hoax, or it's a bizarre edge case of the 2012 tour of She Has a Name sort. (The second and third cases shouldn't be passing said processes, but they do, and that's another discussion for another day.) "GA/FA don't assess notability" is a red herring -- they don't check an article fits the XNG because the XNG is the guideline as to whether an article complex enough to hit GA/FA can be written (indeed it's the guideline as to whether an article complex enough to hit "the more respectable end of Start" can be written). I look at this, which has passed GA review, and I find myself agreeing with that assessment. It's not a topic of particular interest to me, but it's a respectable, solid article that hits the beats it needs. It's able to cover a broad swathe of areas of interest to readers without falling into puffery, exaggeration, or any other habits of a stretched-thin article on an insufficient topic. I spot-checked the reviews and found them acceptable even if sparse; one devoted much of a paragraph to the song, which seems "acceptable for NSONGS". The Ed Sheeran coverage doesn't seem trivial, either. As to the claim of OR, I removed one reference that was simply duplicating another, and the other one accused of it clearly and obviously references the song by its lyrics -- which is exactly what the article says. Essentially -- "if this wasn't notable, the article wouldn't look like this". Is that circular? No, it's exactly what XNGs are designed to do -- screen out articles that would never be able to be improved to the level of a thousand decent words. It is a complete misinterpretation to weaponize SNGs for the deletion (via redirection or otherwise) of GAs, and a complete misunderstanding of what it means to be building (including via curation and the removal of unacceptable content) an encyclopedia, because an article that has distinguished itself as high-quality is not unacceptable content barring extenuating circumstances (as described above). The purpose of XNGs is to serve the project, not the other way around. If an SNG prescribes that high-quality articles should be deleted, then the problem is not with those articles. Vaticidalprophet 04:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This shouldn't have passed GA as not only the article doesn't pass WP:NSongs but it shows a lot of original research. GA doesn't grant notability to any article, the reviewer at the time might not take a closer look. Truth be told, nowhere in the GA criteria sais it needs you as a reviwer to check for notability. It clearly states on WP:NSongs "coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability", there is nothing in this article besided reviews in the context of an album. To begin with it has to be multiple, not one review (with a pragraph) and Ed Sheeran is an interested third party as he is one of the writers of the song, "This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise" you haven't read WP:NSongs like you should. The problem is this article. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I already brought up, and disagreed with, the OR claim. "This should not have passed GA" is your opinion; it is not mine. "NSONGS says a quality and unproblematic article is inappropriate for the project" is a problem for NSONGS. (There are other SNGs with the opposite issue.) Vaticidal<b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 20:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It is problematic as there is a conflict of interest betweeen the songwriter and the song he wrote. Needs to be a independent source. It is not a problem for NSONGS, it is a problem this type of articles exist. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It is also the opinion of the one GA reviewer who looked at sources, and failed it. Uncle G (talk) 02:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 02:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I find myself entirely in agreement with Vatricidal Prophet. I think that AfD has been ignoring the spirit of deletion and notability guidelines for some time in favor of wikilawyering and "well technically..." (and don't even get me started on "give me three sources..."), and nominating a GA article just seems to be almost a parody of AfD.  I don't know if I've ever heard of this song, it's certainly not my preferred style (I think Rock & Roll peaked in 1975 with | Born to Run and everything since is irrelevant), but I am impressed with the article itself, that people were able to source the background and compositional style of the song.  The rest of the article quite literally explains the notability by covering its critical reception, charting, and live performances.  As I said, I couldn't care less about this band and this song, but I wish we had more editors and articles like this.  Do not nominate GA articles for deletion!  If you disagree with the GA nomination or the quality of the article, use the talk page. Hyperion35 (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You need to read WP:NSONG. Independent sources that should cover ONLY the song, they are album reviews. Its not about being GA or not...if it wasn't GA it would be on the same spot. Ga doesn't grant notability to any article, independent sources do. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I am misunderstanding the GA process, or perhaps the process is different for different types of articles or different Wikiprojects. Isn't an evaluation of the sources a significant part of the GA process?  In Wikiproject Medicine, MEDRS gets repeated so many times during a GA process that you almost think it's someone's username, for example.  Now, perhaps you disagree with the GA result, but I am looking at the result of the process and the consensus that resulted. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to get a GA demoted, just simply showing this article its not notable as it lacks coverage of independent sources. This was promoted back in 2012, a lot of things have changes including the criteria...therefore we have WP:NSONG. The first GA reviewer who looked at sources, failed it. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per . Riteboke (talk) 07:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't understand why you trying to save an article that fails WP:NSongs. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm neutral when it comes to notability of non-single songs. Honestly, there's nothing wrong if the people who voted to keep the article agree with the reasonings of Vaticidalprophet and Hyperion35 that this song meets WP:GNG. So, it's best to respect their views than to waste your time arguing with them. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 07:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep per WP:WHYN and doesn't fall under WP:NOT.  78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 13:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Vaticidalprophet and Hyperion35. You can lawyer it all day long, but this remains a respectable article which belongs in our encyclopedia. --Muhandes (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.