Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Some Kind of Miracle (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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 04:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Some Kind of Miracle (song)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article about an album track fails WP:GNG as it has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. An analysis of the 10 sources proves this:


 * Source 1 is a dead link and thus fails WP:V, and cannot be counted towards establishing notability.
 * Source 2 is a primary source and thus fails to establish notability.
 * Source 3 contains one sentence about the track and is therefore not significant coverage.
 * Sources 4 and 5 are inaccessible and are therefore unable to establish notability. contain no significant coverage.
 * Sources 7 and 8 cite Discogs, an unreliable source, and contain absolutely no coverage of the track.
 * Sources 6, 9 and 10 are much like source 3; routine, trivial mentions that do not contain significant coverage to prove notability. Till  13:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 18:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Sources do not have to be freely available online, so sources 1, 4 and 5 can't be dismissed in this way. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You are right. I retrieved source 5 from Wayback Machine, and it contains this line "'Some Kind Of Miracle' is a 21st century Bangles". That's at most a trivial mention. As for source 4, the source is still inaccessbile, so I can't really judge on that yet. Still sorting out source 1. If it ends up to be a trivial mention, I'm afraid that this article will have to be deleted or merged as lacking notability. Till  00:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Ri l ey    00:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Delete already, per nom. It's clear after two relists that no one has come to the rescue, nor found any sources to save this. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep – What appears to be notable about this song is that a large number of reviewers, when writing about the album Sounds of the Underground, singled out this song for commentary, so I wouldn't view that as "routine" coverage. Certainly it's not the most notable track on the album, and if just a couple of reviewers wrote something brief about this track, it would not warrant a separate article. But there's enough here to squeak by our guidelines for inclusion. I've added several more reviews just now. Each of them is brief coverage, but brief does not always equate to "trivial" coverage, especially when there are so many music critics commenting briefly about the song. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 16:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The track was reviewed as part of the album, and each review contains no more than one sentence. That's not significant coverage. Unless sources that directly address the song in detail, rather than short, trivial mentions as part of an album review are brought forward, this topic should not have a standalone article. Till  02:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'm not all that sure. Again, I'm not automatically going to dismiss short coverage as "trivial" simply because it is short, especially when there are quite a range of sources. The implication I suppose in what you are saying is that I added "trivia" to the article, but I don't think I did. I expanded the "Critical reception" section with each source, which is a fairly standard thing for articles about songs. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 18:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's usual practice to notify the main contributor/author of the article when initiating an AfD. I'm not sure if there was a reason it was not done in this case. I went ahead and notified the article creator. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 20:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep more or less per Paul Erik. Nom's overzealous parsing of the notability standards effectively synthesizes principles that do not enjoy consensus support. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:12, 12 January 2013 (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.