Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sober (Selena Gomez 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. Although the rationales against keeping the article are strong, there is consensus among the community for the article to be retained. By the way, has an article ever before successfully passed a GA review which coincided with an AfD?.. (non-admin closure)  J 947  02:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Sober (Selena Gomez song)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

(because new people quit participating on the talk page even though the "keep crowd" requested a roll call in multiple forums) --- article is about a song. not a single. not a "classic". not a signature song. The song did not chart, unless you count the "bubbling under" chart, which is the equivalent of "everybody gets a ribbon"...

Nothing to make it notable.

Notability is not inherited, therefore the artist's or the album's notability does not come into play. There is a reason why the redirect sat untouched for 17 months. It simply does not meet criteria for an article. Kellymoat (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:GNG. No, 1) the song was not released as a single, or 2) considered a "classic", or 3) classified as a "signature song", but none of these are reasons for deleting this article. Nor is the fact that the song didn't chart, or that the redirect was not expanded until recently. No one is arguing that the article be kept simply because Selena Gomez is notable. What matters is sufficient coverage in secondary reliable sources. Our collective time is probably better spent attempting to improve, not delete, the article. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Does WP:GNG apply for subjects that have their own guidelines - such as songs? Kellymoat (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Guidelines about music-related articles can be found here (Notability (music)) and there is a separate section devoted to songs. Hope this helps. Songs are generally determined notable when they fit one or more of the following criteria: that it has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts, has won one or more significant awards or honors, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award, and has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups. It is also strongly encouraged that there multiple reliable sources devoted to the song outside of album reviews. It is irrelevant if the song was released as a single or not or if it is considered a "classic" or a signature song (it is possible for an album track to notable enough for its own article, but it is much rarer in comparison to those on singles), as long as it fits those three qualifications. I would count the "bubbling under" chart as the song charting on something as it is an official Billboard chart, but it is typically encouraged that the articles have sources that demonstrate its notability (I feel that the quality of the sources is typically the deciding factor rather than charting or not). Aoba47 (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * All of which is what I have been saying from the beginning. Kellymoat (talk) 18:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not disagreeing with you; I was just trying to help by answering your question. Aoba47 (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not !voting because I haven't dug into the sources. I'm curious though - why do you want to delete the page? You mentioned that you think it isn't notable but, getting back to basics for a second, what's the benefit of deleting it if (per your comments on the page) it's both well-written and informative about a song by someone famous? As I say, I don't take a view just now on whether or not it is 'notable' according to guidelines, but I'm struggling to see why deleting it would be helpful either way. Mortee (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * because we don't keep articles just because they are well written. Think about it - I could write a great article about you or I. It doesn't mean that WP needs to waste space on us. Who are we. (no offense, just trying to demonstrate the point). A poorly written article about a notable subject can be improved, but a non-notable subject is simply not notable regardless of how well the article is written.
 * And as far as the "it is from a famous person", that is the where the "notability is not inherited" comes in. There are 19 songs on that one album. Do we need 19 articles? Don't forget her other albums - do we need 100 articles for all of her songs? Articles must meet their own individual notability criteria. Simply being from a famous person is not a qualifier. WP is not free advertising for celebrities.
 * Kellymoat (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the reason I shouldn't have an article is that I haven't done anything that someone would be interested in, the facts about me couldn't be backed up by reliable sources, and there'd be a maintenance burden because someone would have to keep the article up to date as my life progressed. I don't see how any of those apply to a Selena Gomez song's article as long as it has sources to establish the facts. (If this risks veering away from a specific discussion about the article to a philosophical one, I don't mind moving it to one of our talk pages) Mortee (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * But I could write an article about you regardless of whether or not you "haven't done anything that someone would be interested in". And as far as verifiable sources, you would be surprised what information is available about you. The web knows everything. Kellymoat (talk) 15:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd be genuinely interested to see how that went. Mortee (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment charts (or lack thereof) aren't deciding factors as Another Believer indicates, but the WP:NSONGS section of WP:Notability (music) (the relevant criteria for song articles) indicates that a track must be significantly covered outside of album reviews by credible sources not closely affiliated with its artist or label. Any song only covered in album reviews doesn't warrant an article. I so far see independent (outside of album reviews) detail on the track at Bustle (see https://www.bustle.com/articles/116008-who-is-selena-gomezs-sober-about-the-meaning-behind-the-song-is-very-deep) and PopCrush (see http://popcrush.com/selena-gomez-sober-listen/? and http://popcrush.com/best-songs-we-heard-this-week-selena-gomez-rebecca-fiona-jon-mclaughlin-more/). Not sure if Bustle is any good, but PopCrush isn't an adequate reference per WP:WikiProject Albums/Sources. Either way, one good publication giving independent song coverage wouldn't be enough for an article. If more unaffiliated publications covering the song can be found, then this can be kept. Otherwise, it should be redirected to the Revival album. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've looked for other coverage and found this, this and this about a cover of the song (plus other articles in languages I don't speak, judging from headlines), plus mentions here (just a blog?) and here (only about charting news). I'll leave it to others to decide if the accumulated coverage establishes notability, perhaps narrowly. Mortee (talk) 12:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Headline Planet (charts article) is a dubious publication, not sure what to say about "SammaffiaOnline" or "TigerBeat" since I'm not familiar with those, but "On the air with Ryan Seacrest" and Seventeen are overall fine, and in these cases just barely give enough independent detail on the track (even if as a cover). I'm therefore going to say keep, but it would be ideal if additional good sources that aren't album reviews could be used and preferably focusing on Gomez's rendition. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * See, I am looking at those celebrity gossip pages (Seventeen is the Celebrity Couple section) as talking about the two of them dating based on a song, not independently about the song. Kellymoat (talk) 15:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with SNUGGUMS in what he says but I'm going to furthered. Not enough independent coverage overall, pop crush is not reliable (unfortunately) and the others have to due with the album. The song only entered the bubbling, didn't get any award or "independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups". Charlie Puth is not several is just one. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep The reliable and verifiable sources in the article supports the individual claim of notability for this particular song. Alansohn (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep "Sober" was leaked several days prior to the record's release date, prompting multiple news outlets to report, review, and analyze the song. Gomez has given numerous in-depth interviews surrounding the track's unique background, inspiration, writing, and recording prior to and after the album's release. It also charted on the US Billboard Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles chart. The notion that an accomplishment like that is similar to "everybody gets a ribbon" is condescending, considering that the Bubbling Under chart is simply a 25-song extension of the Hot 100. In addition to that, a substantial amount of music critics highlighted "Sober" as a standout in their reviews and analysis of the song and Revival, many writing at-length about the composition and lyrics (much more than what should be included in the "music" and "songs" section of the Revival article), which were notable for the buzz they caused over their proposed connection to her relationship with Bieber. Therefore, I am voting Keep.  Gia co bbe  talk 00:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * But it is a "participating" award. You just said, it is an extension of an actual chart - which translate into "it wasn't good enough for the real chart but we didn't want you to feel bad so we changed the rules to include you."
 * And as to the rest of what you are saying -- the song was leaked before the album which made people talk about the song. Not that they were talking about the song, they were talking about the leak of the album. And then you said that they said it was the best song on the album, or how it related to the the Gomez/Beiber relationship. None of which is talking about the song by itself. It is all in connection to something else. Kellymoat (talk) 00:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, your tone used to describe in the chart is condescending and un-encyclopedic, not helping your case. Bubbling Under is not a "participation" award, many recording artists struggle to even achieve the feat. Your statement that it translates to "it wasn't good enough for the real chart but we didn't want you to feel bad so we changed the rules to include you" is once again completely your own personal opinion, and has nothing to do with the notability of Bubbling Under. I don't know where you got this idea from, but it is an "actual chart"; an exclusive 25-song extension of the Hot 100 that can only be accessed by paying for a Billboard subscription.
 * I'm confused by the second half of your rebuttal? "Sober" leaked before Revivals release, 3 days to be exact. The articles referred to the song in itself, and not of the album leaking, which occurred several days later. Simply reading those sources would've told you that.  Gia co bbe ' talk 02:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Quite frankly, I am being condescending towards "Bubbling Under. Why wouldn't I be? We've gone from top 10 to 20 to 40. There's charts for 100 and 200. Now we have, in this case, number 22. Hey, that sounds important - 22. Yeah, but it is actually 122 because once we hit 100, we start over at number 1? And according to what you just said, it isn't even a public chart, it is an exclusive from some website for members only? If that is the only chart that a song is on, then it didn't actually chart. Does Wikipedia need an article on the 121 songs that were in a higher position that week. Or the 121 songs that were high the next week. Or the 121 songs that were... Do you see my point. WP doesn't need that much wasted space on nothing songs.
 * So, we have a few articles about a leak, a few about an album, a few about a relationship, and a few about a different relationship. Unless you are a Selena Gomez fan, I don't see why this page deserves an article.Kellymoat (talk) 12:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep – Well, I'm not a Selena Gomez fan and I do feel this song passes the notability. FYI, "Sober" also peaked at number 36 on Billboard's Pop Digital Songs component chart, which measures the best-selling pop songs of the week in the US. This suggests "Sober" had a strong commercial impact, strong enough that is also entered the Bubbling Under chart, which is the additional 25 spots of the Hot 100. Carbrera (talk) 13:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC).
 * Weak keep primarily from SNUGGUMS' comments, as I trust their judgement on this issue. I say that my vote is "weak" as I am not 100% confident about it, and I can understand the perspective from those who put up "delete" and "redirect" votes. I would say a "weak keep" only if the article can be adjusted to SNUGGUMS' point that "it would be ideal if additional good sources that aren't album reviews could be used and preferably focusing on Gomez's rendition". Aoba47 (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete article fails WP:NSONGS. There is absolutely nothing notable about this song, it's been bloated with lots of unnecessary and trivial details from album reviews and unreliable sources. The song at the most warrants 1 or 2 sentences in its parent album article. Abi-Maria (talk) 06:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment – Condense an article's worth of information into 1-2 sentences? That's a bit much, don't you think? Carbrera (talk) 05:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC).
 * A brief description of the song's sound and lyrics in the Revival article is all that's needed, it is only an album track after all. The first two paragraphs of this article are about Revival and not "Sober". While the rest of the article is bloated by reviews of Revival and mostly unreliable sources. More than half of the remaining sources are grossly unreliable: Popcrush, Popology Now, 411Mania, concreteonline are all blogs with no credibility. Redbrick is a student newspaper. Almost every Gomez song is interpreted by tabloids as being about Bieber, there's really nothing new here. "Sober" charting on Bubbling Under doesn't make it notable sorry. Abi-Maria (talk) 08:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I said up above that I could write a big flowery article about anything. A poorly written article about a notable subject can be edited for improvement. But a well written article about a non-notable subject is still a non-notable subject.
 * The song sat as a redirect for over a year because someone was hoping it would someday become notable - it never did. I love how people will use a chart as a reason as to why a song needs an article, but no one ever answers the question as to if we need to write articles about the 121 songs that charted better than Sober. Kellymoat (talk) 11:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 02:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment - Personally, I'm having a bit of a hard time determining one way or another, because there are some serious WP:BOMBARD issues here. If the article is kept, substantial trimming is necessary. There's far too much content present that is referring about the album in general rather than this song in particular. It's bloating the article far too much - that info belongs in the album article, not here. Sergecross73   msg me  14:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947  18:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep it like a well-sourced love song, that it is. The need for editing is not a reason for deletion. Bearian (talk) 02:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - After nearly a month of discussion, the consensus appears to be keep (8 to 3). Worthy and notable points have brought up from both sides, along with additional sources to prove notability. Also, the article is undergoing a GA review currently (however the process has been put on hold until the resolution of this AfD) which will put it under further analysis from the reviewer. I'm sure you're familiar with the AfD closure process so it is up to the reviewer if they would like to withdraw the nomination themselves, or I could contact an admin to close the discussion.  Gia co bbe  talk 17:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The GA review is completely irrelevant to this process, as notability is not one of the GA criteria. While it does make sense to put the GA review on hold while this nomination plays out—why spend time on it if the article ends up being deleted—any analysis on the GA reviewer's part is unlikely to shed more light on an AfD. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Revival (Selena Gomez album) I went through the sources and after carefully reading the arguments and sources, I have to agree that the song is not notable enough for a standalone article. The guideline we look at is WP:NSONG which says ''Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. It also clarifies that Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. The sources presented here are not enough. For example
 * Popcrush, is.
 * Bustle is essentially a contributor blog which we consider WP:SPS, and
 * Headlineplanet.com, doesn't seem like a reliable source with a editorial board. Looks like a blog.
 * sammaffiaonline.com  WP:SPS claiming to be an online magazine. Doesn't seem to have an editorial board.
 * tigerbeat.com  (of which the song is mentioned in 1 sentence). The website seems like one of the numerous music gossip sites. Clearly not a reliable source
 * Seventeen . (about Charlie Puth randomly covering the song). There is nothing else here. This is not significant coverage.
 * iheart.com.
 * The . This doesn't help to pass WP:NSONG.
 * Bubbling under charts are not useful for establishing notability of a song.
 * The article is also heavily padded, with much of the details inherited from the album. This is also what pushes me towards a merge and redirect decision. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for breaking down the sources present in the article. I greatly appreciate that you took the time to do so and fully explain the reason behind your vote. Aoba47 (talk) 16:07, 17 March 2017 (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.