Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Songfacts (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. Spartaz Humbug! 19:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Songfacts
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The claims to notability are tenuous at best:


 * The top says that it "was chosen as a Yahoo! Pick and subsequent press coverage expanded the reach considerably," with absolutely nothing to back that up. There's no point in saying "press coverage" if you're not going to prove that said press coverage existed.
 * It claims to have been listed in a totally arbitrary "100 best" list in Men's Journal, which is in no way substantial coverage.
 * The coverage in USA Weekend may or may not be substantial, but I have not been able to track it down.
 * A search through Google News turned up nothing but articles that cited it as a resource; absolutely nothing non-trivial besides "Songfacts said blah blah blah about song x," which is clearly not substantial third party coverage in any way.

Google Books turns up the following:
 * This, which basically amounts to "blah blah blah, I looked stuff up on Songfacts."
 * This, a two sentence listing, clearly not substantial.
 * Literally every other book cited on Google News only lists Songfacts as a point of reference in the footnotes or references section.

The last AFD, from May 2009, closed (prematurely, in my opinion) as a keep after only two !votes. Those two !votes claimed this, this and a now-domain-parked link as third-party coverage, but those two websites are definitely not reliable sources in any fashion.

In short, there are several sources out there that use Songfacts as a point of reference, but absolutely none have given the site itself any sort of third-party, non-trivial coverage. Simply being used as a reference in another notable work is not enough to pass the threshhold of notability; notability is not inherited. I should also point out that Songfacts.com is on the URL blacklist, which indicates that its use as a reference is somewhat dubious. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per above reasons, doesn't seem to be a notable website and potentially unreliable info has been added to song articles from there, mostly by non-regulars of Wikipedia. CloversMallRat (talk) 02:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I see the point about notability not being inherited. I was able to add references to some of the press coverage, including a Chicago Tribune article that is available on the web. The site is a tremendous source of original content, as they do extensive interviews with popular songwriters and performers, as seen here: http://www.songfacts.com/blog/interviews/. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndugu (talk • contribs) 15:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The two sources you added are both trivial. Yahoo! Picks are given out to tons of sites and not an assertation of notability. The Chicago Tribune article is only a two sentence mention and not substantial in any way. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Songfacts is a unique resource. As far as I'm aware, it is the only site that acts as a database for music trivia and information compiled by experts- DJs, writers and the artists themselves.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hillcrest2 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A lot of "keep"s based on it's use as a resource. Which isn't really relevant here, what we need is substantial coverage from independent sources to establish notability which I'm not really seeing here, delete. Rehevkor ✉  19:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * When the article was marked for deletion, it didn't adequately reflect the coverage from independent sources. I put in references to coverage about the site (not just being used as a resource) in Men's Journal, USA Weekend, Mental Floss and The Mumbai Mirror. There have also been numerous radio segments which have discussed the site, but those are very hard to source. You can hear a recent example here (http://www.whoradio.com/cc-common/podcast/single_podcast.html?podcast=deace.xml), where the segment is described "Deace checks out the cool website Songfacts.com, which promises the real story behind some of Pop Music's most famous songs."Ndugu (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Everything Ndugu added was either one-sentence mentions in the scopes of larger work, primary sources, irrelevant or synthesis. The radio mention is also trivial. Absolutely nothing added is helpful. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - the references appear to be trivial at best, as noted; I'm not convinced there's enough third-party coverage of this site to make it notable. I also note that a sampling of the contributions of both 'keep' opinions above indicates that the majority of their edits to Wikipedia have involved adding references gleaned from this site. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - A little hard to simply dismiss! - A Goggle Books search result shows that Songfacts is/has-been  used as a reference source for many books, so can we just dismiss it ??--> Songfacts Book search .. Third party view of the site from 2003 -->Keeping current: advanced Internet strategies to meet librarian and patron needs By Steven M. Cohen  ISBN: 0838908640  - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talk • contribs) 20:18, 17 June 2010


 * Keep Per the following sources:


 * And then there are more out there. A lot are newspapers that just syndicate each other's content, so there is a lot of duplication, but I think that the ones above are at least unique from each other. Gary King  ( talk ) 18:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Dude, did you read any of your sources? They dedicate, at the most, two whole sentences to the website. That's not substantial coverage if you ask me. Also, the books cited are trivial mentions as well -- the second one doesn't even mention it at all, and all the Gbooks hits only show that it was used as a reference point. SAYING IT WAS USED AS A SOURCE IS NOT THE SAME AS A NON-TRIVIAL COVERAGE. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The above sources, sure, only mention the site in a list of other "recommended websites to visit", but they were found within a minute or two. There's some decent information in there to form perhaps a paragraph or two of information. However, if more research is done, you'll find articles entirely dedicated to reviewing the site, such as "Songfacts.com." Scholastic Choices Jan. 2005: 5. General OneFile. You just need to look in non-conventional places, meaning outside of the standard Google Books and Google News Archives; in these two databases in particular, websites usually don't get more than brief coverage in articles that discuss similar websites as well. In addition, most of the sources covering the website will probably be from around the time it was launched, so 1999. Gary King  ( talk ) 20:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, if all the sources were from 1999 and literally none from afterward, wouldn't that mean that it's probably not notable? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If it was notable in 1999, then it should still be considered notable now, per WP:NTEMP. Gary King  ( talk ) 00:00, 19 June 2010 (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.