Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riptide (The Chainsmokers 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. Editors are encouraged to add the sources indicated in this discussion to the article to prevent renomination in the near future. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃  (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 17:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Riptide (The Chainsmokers song)

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

Probably too soon to have an article on this song. I do not believe "enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" exists at this time.  danny music editor  oops 16:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. If the song gets on a chart, is used in a notable film/TV show/advertisement, or goes viral on social media, we can create the article again. ArdynOfTheAncients (talk) 16:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Definite keep: It's clear that neither the article creator nor the nominator took a good look for sources (the burden of which ultimately lies with the creator). I found no less than four sources in the space of a minute; Rolling Stone, EDM.com, KS95, and Radio and Music. A simple search for sources would've prevented this discussion. Sean Stephens (talk) 04:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: No it wouldn't, not really, because none of those sources say anything more than "the song has been released" and one line stating what the song is about, which are all suspiciously close to each other in wording that it sounds like the writers all copied the same press release – in fact, the last source IS a press release from the band/record label themselves, so it's not an independent source either. It's not about whether there are any mentions of the song in sources, it's about whether those sources are any good, and in this case they aren't, so I don't see that a one-line description from any of them are enough to make this pass WP:NSONG. But I'm going to wait and see if this song charts anywhere in the next week before making a final decision about it. Richard3120 (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that the amount of sources available are minimal, finite even. The Rolling Stone source describes it as being "[an] emotive track [that] is a reflection on the need to embrace time spent with a significant other", EDM.com says "it's a classic Chainsmokers record in terms of its emotive songwriting", KS95 notes it's "about wanting to be with someone, even though it's unsure they'll stick around for the long term", and "shimmering new song". There's almost certainly enough to merit a stub article (minimal as it may be), and, given it's now charted (as you've also noted below), it should be kept in order to encourage article development. Sean Stephens (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep Meets WP:NSONG with sources presented by Sean Stephens. They're in-depth and reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nomination — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.145.163.110 (talk) 06:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * All of your votes appear to be WP:PERNOM and so are fairly meaningless. NemesisAT (talk) 08:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The Chainsmokers are a very successful act and we can see this article already has a substantial number of views. Thus I think it's beneficial to Wikipedia to keep this article, rather than delete it only to have to recreate it later on, creating extra work for editors. Meets WP:GNG with sources listed above. NemesisAT (talk) 09:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per NemesisAT's comment. If we don't choose to keep this page, it should be redirected to The Chainsmokers discography instead of deleted, so we can easily recover the content should it be recreated. EDM fan 2 (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Pretty sure Rolling Stone is a notable source. Weird hidden agenda against this group 5 years past their peak for whatever reason. 68.134.159.54 (talk) 06:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You are confusing "notable source" with "in-depth coverage". The Rolling Stone article is simply an announcement of the song's release, along with a 17-word sentence stating the song's theme. Nobody can seriously describe that as "in-depth coverage". The same goes for the other sources presented above, they say nothing more than that the song was released and one line saying what it's about. That's why some editors are voting to delete, nothing to do with any imagined vendetta against the group. Richard3120 (talk) 14:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep telling yourself that. 68.134.159.54 (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Source analysis please Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 10:40, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep based on charting on a couple of specialist charts, but it's not convincing. Richard3120 (talk) 12:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: No real claim of notability here, and in this state, doesn't warrant its own article. Not to veer into WP:OTHER territory, but this is honestly just one of the many song articles that stay in mainspace despite little to no notability that barely passes the WP:NSONG guidelines, an unfortunate precedent. And if the argument is that this article should be kept because the Chainsmokers are a notable act well, notability is not generally inherited. AshMusique (talk) 16:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep also a Billboard article on the song being in the top 10, but the paywall hides it from me, another in Broadway World . Even with these stubs, I think it's gotten enough traction already to be kept. Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2022 (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.