Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moving On (Marshmello 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. (non-admin closure) Warm Regards, ZI Jony  (Talk) 14:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Moving On (Marshmello song)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable per WP:NSONGS. Failed to receive significant coverage from reliable sources. Hayman30 (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Satisfies the general notability criteria as having received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic - Billboard, Substream Magazine, DJ Mag, Your EDM, Dancing Astronaut, Los 40, Run the Trap, EDM Sauce. The editor  whose username is Z0 13:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  GameInfirmary   Talk  13:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  GameInfirmary   Talk  13:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Um, Run the Trap and EDM Sauce are obviously blogs. That DJ Mag article with four sentences doesn't count as "significant coverage". Your EDM is a trivial blog-ish source at best, I would personally avoid building an article primarily with this site. 3 or 4 sources doesn't constitute "multiple" considering the song merely charted at 18 on US Hot Dance/Electronic and nowhere else. It may pass GNG but it fails to meet NSONG, which is a notability guideline specifically targeted at songs. Hayman30 (talk) 13:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The DJ Mag article is wholly dedicated to this song so it does count as a significant source. Run the Trap is an established publication founded in 2012, with a whole set of staff. Same goes for EDM Sauce. No, they're not obviously blogs. Your EDM has credible writers such as Matthew Meadows who's also the editor-in-chief at Billboard and a whole set of staff. Charting on an acceptable Billboard chart per WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS, is also another indicator of notability. Your previous attempts to remove obviously notable articles as indicated at Articles for deletion/If It Were You, We'd Never Leave, proves you are unwilling to be proven wrong. The editor  whose username is Z0  13:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, passing just the GNG is sufficient to keep an article as stated at WP:N, it does not even need to pass the NSONGS criteria. The editor  whose username is Z0  13:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Back at it again with your nonsensical reasoning, huh? DJ Mag doesn't count, regardless of whether it's dedicated to the song. Any review of the "article" would deem it insignificant coverage. On a side note, one of those four short sentences isn't even about the song. Run the Trap is an underground trap music website (what they called themselves), not an established publication, whether they were founded in 2012 is irrelevant. Yes, they have a bunch of contributors, not paid staff members, anyone can summit an article to them and be posted. Any blog can call itself "the most recognizable publication". Having a set of staff doesn't indicate that they are established publications, not mention their staff members are most likely just music enthusiasts not professional writers. Likewise, articles on EDM Sauce (oh that's juicy name isn't it) are written by music enthusiasts. I can make a website and invite all my friends to be my staff and call my site the most prestigious dance music publication, does my website count as a reliable source? No. These websites/blogs failed to build reputation or receive recognition from other independent sources, hence making them unreliable and unsuitable for Wikipedia. Why are you so supportive of these dodgy music blogs? Perhaps it's because they're the only ones you could find? And jeez, having a Billboard writer on a website doesn't immediately upgrade it to the same level as Billboard, nor does it automatically increase reliability, and the article aforementioned isn't even written by him. This is a good faith attempt at examining a possibly unnotable topic, not an "attempt to remove obviously notable articles". You need to stop quoting one instance of failed AfD nomination everywhere trying to put me bad light. I really don't know who's "unwilling to be proven wrong" here on Wikipedia. And passing GNG is not sufficient to keep an article, because GNG is merely creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. And it should ideally pass NSONGS as well, because if not, why were these guidelines created? Hayman30 (talk) 14:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes yes the name is indeed juicy, but that doesn't mean it isn't an acceptable reliable source on Wikipedia. These are not just music blogs but music journalism websites that have been in the industry for years/decades. If you read WP:N, it states "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right". In this case, it has met GNG with sources from Billboard, DJ Mag and Dancing Astronaut. The article of the previously-mentioned AFD had similar sources but still was kept in the discussion. <u style="color:#7f2ed1">The editor <u style="color:#bfa6d8"> whose username is <u style="color:#7f2ed1">Z0  15:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh yes it's not an acceptable reliable source on Wikipedia, and I didn't even cite its name as a reason, I was merely pointing it out. I already explained why those dodgy websites are unreliable, you just don't wanna accept it. Seems like you're taking my words out of context now because you couldn't make a point. And you need to realise: these self-proclaimed "music websites" can be in the industry for a hundred years—that doesn't make them more reliable or notable. Reliability and reputation does not progress with time, they literally have no connection. They only way to indentify if a source is reliable is to see if it has been recognized by other reputable publications. Magazines like Billboard and DJ Mag are the quintessential examples here. And please read carefully, GNG is a presumption, not a guarantee, and we shouldn't entirely rely on it, nor should you use it to back yourself up. And as I've previously pointed out and extensively explained, 3 articles does not constitute "multiple" in this particular situation. I guess you just don't wanna hear it. Hayman30 (talk) 05:45, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hold on, lad. I'll take a look at your reply in the evening and respond then with more details. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="color:#7f2ed1">The editor <u style="color:#bfa6d8"> whose username is <u style="color:#7f2ed1">Z0  05:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per the editor whose username is Z0. A topic that satisfies GNG does not need to satisfy any SNG. 2 sources constitute "multiple", never mind 3 or 4. Deletion would violate ATD, PRESERVE and R because Marshmello has an article. James500 (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: the Billboard coverage is compelling, as far as EDM tracks go:
 * Musically, “Moving On” is another bass-heavy, cutesy anthem in the mystery-producer's signature sound. It's right in his wheelhouse, so if you love Marshmello, you'll probably listen to this a few hundred times. The video already has a million views on YouTube.
 * K.e.coffman (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2018 (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.