Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/River Lea (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. Michig (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

River Lea (song)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I've never seen an article in mainspace which lacks notability more than this does, and see another editor fight for it to stay in mainspace as much as this article. I mean, seriously. Three short sentences, a chart table with two chartings, and two references. There is nothing notable about this song, it's not a single, there's no third party sources or independant coverage, it hasn't won any awards or been nominated for any. Letting the article remain in mainspace in order for it to "expand over time" in the hope that it will become notable is not a good enough reason for it stay in mainspace, AnotherBeliever. You insist on the article not being redirect and keep reverting multiple editors who are redirecting these non-notable articles. — Calvin999 17:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I reverted twice, but another editor reverted the redirect as well. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Not because they agree that it is notable, I have to add. Only for the debate on it's notability. — Calvin999  17:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete no independent coverage (outside of album reviews/Adele's own commentary) from any credible sources, though I should note that whether a song is a single is not an automatic indicator of notability. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Per nominator's rationale which is pretty solid. — Indian: BIO  [ ChitChat  ] 20:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Meets both WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. Multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Charting in at least two countries. Here are some sample instances of coverage (collapsed for convenience):


 * Full articles
 * http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/nov/22/adele-25-observer-review-a-river-runs-through-it
 * http://www.bustle.com/articles/125114-is-river-lea-real-adele-sings-about-an-important-location-on-25
 * http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/20/bad-sex-awards-morrissey-adele-river-lea


 * Significant coverage
 * http://www.npr.org/2015/11/24/457252109/you-cant-prepare-yourself-a-conversation-with-adele


 * Major discussion within album reviews
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/24/arts/music/adele-on-25-song-by-song.html
 * http://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2015/nov/19/adele-what-shes-singing-about-on-25
 * http://www.clashmusic.com/reviews/adele-%E2%80%9825%E2%80%99-0
 * http://www.mtv.com/news/2545399/adele-25-track-by-track-breakdown/


 * Significant details within album reviews/previews
 * http://mashable.com/2015/11/19/adele-25-review
 * http://www.spin.com/2015/11/adeles-25-impulsive-reviews/
 * http://highschool.latimes.com/foothill-technology-high-school/adele-strikes-back-and-will-take-your-breath-away-with-25/
 * http://www.usmagazine.com/entertainment/news/adeles-25-is-a-four-star-triumph-album-review-w157988
 * http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/11/adele-25-review-slow-introspective-intensely-human/416811/
 * http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/pop-shop/6770104/adele-25-lyrics-sad
 * http://www.musicinsight.com.au/reviews/album-review-adele-25/
 * http://www.ew.com/article/2015/11/03/adele-shares-more-details-about-music-25
 * http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/pop-shop/6753849/adele-25-things-we-know-album
 * http://www.westerngazette.ca/arts/adele-brings-new-sounds-with-new-age/article_f9902ae0-9598-11e5-bd92-9f6501fb6de9.html
 * https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/entertainment/a/30144939/adele-returns-less-tormented-more-assured-on-25/
 * http://radio.com/2015/11/21/from-19-to-25-all-of-adeles-songs-ranked/
 * http://mic.com/articles/128949/meaning-of-adele-25
 * http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=11554782
 * http://www.telegram.com/article/20151231/ENTERTAINMENTLIFE/151239945


 * More significant details
 * http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/dec/27/danger-mouse-from-outside-artist-to-musical-power-house
 * http://flavorwire.com/549030/why-does-the-world-love-adele
 * http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/adele-inside-her-private-life-and-triumphant-return-20151103
 * http://www.nme.com/blogs/nme-blogs/adele-the-big-talking-points-from-her-revealing-rolling-stone-cover-story
 * http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/pop-shop/6770462/adele-25-songwriters-producers-credits

-- Softlavender (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's all very well and good supplying sources, but they aren't any use here. The article is still not notable. — Calvin999  22:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? Why aren't these sources any use? They seem quite appropriate. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Because this is an AfD? No one reading the article can see these sources or the info they may contain about the song. These sources need to be put in the article, but you don't wanna do that. The time you've spent finding sources and going back and forth here, you could have finished the article or at least had something possibly half way decent to save it from being deleted. — Calvin999</b>  22:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but notability is not established based on the length of an article. Yes, these sources should be added to the article, but this is a discussion about notability, not an article quality assessment. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:Notability (music) does note that songs must have enough material to grow beyond a stub, though. Even if all the sources listed above were implemented, album reviews and Adele's own commentary DO NOT COUNT as sufficient coverage to warrant a song article. Of the sources listed, the only ones that really give a quality amount of detail are those first two links from The Guardian (the credibility of "Bustle" is questionable). Multiple links from one publication essentially count as one source talking about something, and one good publication covering the song independently (outside of album reviews/artist commentary) simply isn't enough. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 22:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Why is Bustle questionable? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Because they don't have much (if any) evidence of journalistic credibility <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 23:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That is very vague, and perhaps a minority opinion. Do you know if a discussion has been had about this reliability of this magazine? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per Softlavender's research (thank you for collecting and posting here, by the way). There is certainly enough coverage to establish notability and justify an article. Yes, the article needs to be expanded, but there is no basis for deletion. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There are three sentences and two sources in the article. Perfect reason for deletion. This article is the definition of not passing GNG. — <b style="color:#595454">Calvin999</b>  22:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , inclusion on Wikipedia is based on notability, not on what the current state of the Wikipedia article is. You misunderstand WP:AfD and the deletion process. Moreover, you are expected to do WP:BEFORE (please read all of that, particularly B2, C1, D1, and D3) prior to nominating an article for deletion. Hopefully going forward you will remember that. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 22:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well I'm not the only one who has voted delete in these nominations. I've pointed out why it's not notable. If you choose to not agree, then that's your prerogative. — <b style="color:#595454">Calvin999</b>  22:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Since the nominator, does not seem to understand the point the other posters are making that notability is not determined by what is actually in the article, but by what sources can be found, I went ahead and added a few, fleshing out the article.  does have a point, though, that it's better to add the sources to the article, and it didn't take me very long to add what I did. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for actually adding some, but I would disagree that I am not understanding other points made. If you want to make that case, then they aren't understanding what I am saying, either. — <b style="color:#595454">Calvin999</b>  08:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak to moderate Keep per chart positions and statements from the participants about this passing GNG. Article's a bit short right now, but I think it could be kept. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī 06:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - Looks promising by the sources provided above that this article can grow, though I must add that this song is not notable by charting alone. --MaranoFan (talk) 09:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - between the source hunting and the charting, I believe WP:NSONGS/WP:GNG is satisfied. Sergecross73   msg me  16:38, 25 January 2016 (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.