Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Lipstick (2nd nomination)


 * 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   redirect to Talk That Talk. Of note is that the redirect preserves the article's revision history, if anyone wants to merge content. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 22:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Red Lipstick
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS, no independent third party coverage except minor mentions in album reviews and those taken from the album's own liner notes. Minor chart placement and no live performances either. This should be deleted or best, redirected to parent album, Talk That Talk. The song being listed as a GA has no qualms on its status as an independent article. — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat ] 06:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Redirect - Charted on three charts (it doesn't matter if it's a "minor" chart or low charting; charting is charting), it's a bonus track so reception will obviously not be as much as standard track song or single, it has been performed live (not that that is a valid reason for nominating to delete). And yes, it is a GA, and that does have an impact on this, and the reviewer clearly didn't have a problem with notability, and neither did anyone else in the last AFD, who all voted keep. —  ₳aron  09:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Faulty logic buddy, you hit the nail on its coffin saying that reception will obviously not be as much as standard track or single, so it fails WP:NSONGS, point one. As noted, its best a CFORK and the GA reviewer not identifying a NSONGS failing article before he/she reviewed it does not mean that it should be notable. A GA review is not the means and end all to an article. — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat ] 13:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * But it's not non-existent. —  ₳aron  16:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Its existence does not render it notable. — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat ] 18:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Talk That Talk plausible search term, but doesn't warrant a separate article when it only gets brief mentions and/or only coverage from album reviews. PopDust, I'm afraid, is not a reliable source at all. Charts are irrelevant when there is no significant coverage from secondary sources outside of album reviews per WP:NSONGS, which explicitly 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.  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 11:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Though I !voted to "keep" last time, this should probably be redirected to Talk That Talk. Since the first nomination, WP:NSONGS has (rightfully, in my view) been clarified to note that songs must establish notability independent of its parent album to warrant a standalone article. In this case, such coverage in reliable independent sources is rather limited - if we accept this write-up as one piece of significant coverage there still must be a second to meet the "multiple, non-trivial" standard. Further, the remaining sections of the article - "Recording and production" and "Credits and personnel" - merely duplicate the album's liner notes (i.e., no independent coverage). The "Charts" references yield only listings; no coverage. The spirit of WP:NSONGS, as I see it, is that a song must, in addition to having "enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article", have coverage beyond "the context of reviews of the album on which it appears". I'm not convinced this song qualifies.  Gongshow   talk  17:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it has been wrongfully changed. What is wrong with album reviews now? —  ₳aron  21:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably because Wikipedia is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information, and album reviews don't exactly give much highlights to tracks compared to non-album reviews.  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 21:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * But that is where the main hub of info about the songs and their genres, samples, lyrical meanings are. Without album reviews there would be no information. —  ₳aron  22:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Album reviews can definitely be used in articles, but cannot be solely relied upon to warrant an article, because then it wouldn't have much on its own.  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 22:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. —  ₳aron  22:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You disagree that's fine, but that does not make passe mentions album reviews as a notability factor for an independent article. — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat ] 09:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There's nothing "wrong" with album reviews per se, it's just that they generally do not provide significant/in-depth coverage on individual songs. Take the Popcrush review for example. Each of the album's 14 songs gets a sentence or two, but such brief name-checks are trivial mentions, whereas significant coverage addresses the topic/song "in detail". Compare the coverage for "We Found Love" at Popcrush with coverage at The Guardian or NME . The latter two are in-depth (and thereby establishes notability), while the former is trivial (and does not establish notability). Obviously, "We Found Love" was a big hit and should be expected to have much more written about it than a bonus track like "Red Lipstick". But that's kind of the point. Just because a song exists, even on a popular album, does not mean a standalone article is warranted.  Gongshow    talk  00:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly, album reviews which talk about individual songs are fine. I understand that Red Lipstick doesn't have as much because it's a bonus track so critics usually leave that out, but We All Want Love has more than enough. It has three paragraphs of CR for Christ's sake, which is more than Cold Case Love. —  ₳aron  13:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge and redirect. I'm not convinced that these minor chart appearances warrant a separate article, and the passing mentions in reviews certainly can't support an article. This song does not need its own article. J Milburn (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, or merge and redirect to article for parent album (Talk That Talk). Minor chart appearances do not establish notability; in its current state, barely any reliable, third-party coverage of the song outside of album reviews is cited, and as such the article fails WP:NSONGS. These kinds of articles don't really establish notability of the song, a sentiment I've expressed in several other similar AFDs. Holiday56 (talk) 13:40, 17 September 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.