Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serious (Gwen Stefani song) (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 no consensus. After extended time for discussion, participation has dropped off and there is a clear absence of consensus to delete. BD2412 T 23:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Serious (Gwen Stefani song)
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Another Gwen Stefani article on a song that does not meet WP:NSONGS. This song has not charted, does not receive coverage independent of album reviews, and has not won awards or was certified. The only seemingly notable thing is an unreleased music video, but I am curious why a music video which has never been made available to the public should have an encyclopedic entry. This sort of information is best reserved for fanwikis, but on Wikipedia, it is potentially fancruft and puffery. HĐ (talk) 06:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 06:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Strong keep It may not meet NSONG but it is rated GA-class. -Cupper52Discuss! 10:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That is not a reason to keep. GA can be reassessed, and so can notability. Fyi, there have been quite a few AFDs for song GAs (this or this). HĐ (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * and this one which the nom forgot about.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 19:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:NSONGS, not charted, no significant coverage findable. CommanderWaterford (talk) 13:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Information regarding a shelved music video is included because several sources have written about it. I do not think its release status should determine its encyclopedic value if reliable publications have reported on it. With that being said, I would like to work on expanding this article, but I'm sure my efforts will be inefficacious. Carbrera (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC).
 * As long as the sources are not reserved to album reviews, and there is enough information on the song itself, then it is okay. HĐ (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, "The only seemingly notable thing is an unreleased music video". The content of articles is not subjected to WP:Notability. Unlike the other Stefani song currently at AFD, this article is not built exclusively on album reviews and satisfies WP:GNG. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 16:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * And please, it's 2021. I've been here for 10 years listening over and over again that songs that have charted/received awards are inherently notable, and those who don't are to be removed, and that misconception has been debunked by WP:NSONGS itself. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 16:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Two of the article’s sources are outside album reviews, so I do not see how that makes the article ‘not built extensively on album reviews’. I do not say that charting makes it inherently notable. I only suggested that chart positions may contribute to a larger indication of notability and could therefore generate successful search for sources. As if I were not familiar with NSONGS, I have participated in songs AFDs on charted or even certified songs. So do not act as if I were a newcomer uninformed of NSONGS, sir. HĐ (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Certainly your knowledge concerning NSONGS is questionable as you seem unaware of the following sentence: "Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" and "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album". The article is clearly not a stubish/startish one. It has "enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article", and most of its information would be lost when merged (assuming that someone will do so if the AFD succeeds) into LAMB. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 02:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think, except for the Music video, the song can satisfy a standalone article. Instead of creating articles for each and every song, a more likely alternative is to expand the album's article L.A.M.B., which is currently lacking a "Production" section (which can encompass the current "Background and composition" section). Merging this article (except the "Music video" section, obvs) would not constitute WP:TOOLONG given that the current size of L.A.M.B. is well within readability. Critical reviews derived from album reviews are rather trivial per NSONGS. The music video, if really necessary, can be mentioned at Gwen Stefani videography in an "Unreleased videos" section. If the song had independent coverage, then I am more than happy for it to have a standalone article. With only two sources for the "music video" section, I think it can be tagged with overly detailed. HĐ (talk) 03:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No-no, I'm not talking about the music video ("notability aside"—WP:NOTEWORTHY being specific), I'm talking about the article as a whole. Even though it is mostly built upon LAMB reviews (now that I see it thoroughly, it has "Live performances" which are not album reviews), "there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article", so detailed that it includes details of the music arrangements, comparisons with other pop songs, and the description of its live performances, details that, as I said, most likely will be lost when merged to LAMB. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 16:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Still I do not think such information is needed as I find it rather fancruft-y (like... artists performing their songs live should not be inherently notable)... However I respect your opinion on this matter, and I want to note that I do not intend to canvass other editors into taking my side. HĐ (talk) 16:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per Cupper52 and Tbhotch.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 19:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No comment regarding your concurring with Tbhotch, but keep it because of its GA status is invalid,″ honestly. HĐ (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * As you are the article's GA reviewer, would you like to give some comments? HĐ (talk) 10:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am uncertain if the coverage on the song and music video is significant enough to warrant a separate article. The two citations currently used in the article about the music video does show some promise, but I'm not sure if that is enough on its own. That being said, this is a rather difficult one (at least in my opinion) to do a search on since the title is very generic. I am not confident enough to put in a vote either way, but I wanted to respond to the above ping. Aoba47 (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's alright. Don't feel obliged to give a definite vote to keep/delete. I agree that the title is generic and a search on this particular song is challenging. I was really doubtful if the video is notable, but I will wait for other editors to chime in. Thank you for the comments. HĐ (talk) 15:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: If expanded with at least one source covering the song itself, I'll vote to keep. At the moment, I'm on the fence here. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think is working on a sandbox, if I am correct. HĐ (talk) 03:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the article would stand as it is currently. HĐ (talk) 03:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am actively attempting to work on the article in my spare time but I have other priorities too. Carbrera (talk) 03:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC).
 * Take your time.


 * Keep – adding 'keep' here since my comment above didn't already mention it. Carbrera (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC).
 * At this point, redirect to Love. Angel. Music. Baby. given no sources that cover the song independently have been added (or identified) since the nomination. I don't think two references (both of which are just three sentences) regarding the existence of an unreleased music video snippet is enough. There remains uncited statements in the paragraph even with those sources. Given that there are no other signs of notability, such as charting or certification, (which I am taking into consideration here) I believe there are multiple articles where some of the information here could be written elsewhere. Heartfox (talk) 04:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cupper52 and Tbhotch. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2021 (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.