Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Speechless (Michael Jackson 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. One two three... 20:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Speechless (Michael Jackson song)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

A non-notable Michael Jackson track that was never released as a single. I suggest it be redirected and protected to stop recreation.  Pyrrhus  16 23:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver  seren C 04:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver  seren C 04:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I have added sources to the article. Speechless is one of Jackson's most well-known songs, even above some of his actual singles. It should have it's own article as much as the next song. Silver  seren C 04:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Speechless" is perhaps Jackson's least well-known song of the Epic Records era, and certainly not more well-known than any of his singles. The slivers of information here can easily be merged into Invincible (album).  Pyrrhus  16 07:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete this is an album track and not notable. Merge to album. - eo (talk) 12:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Since when is it a rule that, if it's an album track, then it's always not notable? Silver  seren C 15:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect Redirect it to discography or appropriate album.  Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it!
 * Keep, yeah, Michael Jackson is a great artist and should be respected even in Wikipedia, also this article only needs a bit of drafting of several experts to pass "stub" to "start". --Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 22:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you please provide a better reason for retaining this article? That MJ was "a great artist" is not good enough and we should not keep every non-notable article regarding him simply to be respectful.  Pyrrhus  16 22:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe his argument is that, in reference to WP:MUSIC, the article can be expanded to Start class with some work and, because of that, doesn't fail the music guidelines in that regard. Combine that with the coverage and it really does look like the song is notable. This reference for example, which is already in the article, has a significant amount of coverage about the making of the song. Silver  seren C 22:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The song fails WP:NMUSIC. It does not matter whether this could be made into a skimpy little start-class article. There is not significant coverage of the song.  Pyrrhus  16 22:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How is this not significant enough coverage? Silver  seren C 22:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is one tabloid-toned section that gives a sliver of information that can easily be merged to the album article. It appears to me that you do not know what significant/comprehensive coverage constitutes.  Pyrrhus  16 22:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." I believe I know very well what it means. Silver  seren C 22:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The article does not give significant detail regarding the song. The sliver of information can be merged to the album article, and should, per WP:MUSIC: "[A] separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album."  Pyrrhus  16 23:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And, as was already stated above, this article can be expanded beyond a stub-class level article. Silver  seren C 23:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The key part of the sentence is "a reasonably detailed article", which this will never be. There are only slivers of information, which can be mentioned in the album article. Where is the information on the composition? What key is it played in? What themes does it explore? How was it significant to the music world? This is not a suffciently detailed article and, with the sources available, never will be.  Pyrrhus  16 23:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, i'll have to take it bit by bit and see what I can do about sources. The composition of it is already in the sources, that's a given, the source I gave you right up there is about how he made it and what for. As for the keys and sheet music, you can find that here. Silver  seren C 23:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sheet music is a primary source and has been questioned for its reliability. See here. It does not matter if you can add a couple more sources, it will never be detailed enough to be a standalone article. All the information can be merged to the album article, and should per WP:MUSIC. You appear to be far too happy to add a couple of sources to non-notable articles up for deletion, ask for it to be kept, and then toddle off to the next article up for deletion, leaving the previous one in a pitiful state. This is damaging the project, especially when there is an alternative place for the information that is in an article that will never be sufficiently detailed or notable.  Pyrrhus  16 10:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Why always delete articles it's the first solution which comes to your mind. Although fails whatever it fails give always six months to either article. If this hasn't been edited on several weeks, you should redirect it to a proper article. If that doesn't work you can nominate it. Tb hotch Ta lk C.  00:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that you know it does not meet the notability criteria but we should just keep it anyway because a lot of articles get deleted and this track (released on a 2001 album) may become more notable in the next six months? This song is not notable now, nine years after the track was first heard. It is WP:CRYSTAL to assume that the song may become more notable in however many months. You have not given a sufficient justification for this article to be kept.  Pyrrhus  16 01:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I never said "This song is amazing and will be a worldwide hit". I never heard this song. I just saying expand the article could take time. Why you didn't redirect Tabloid Junkie before start expandind it? Why Pyrrus didn't redirect D.S. (song) when he created the article? Both song failed WP:NSONGS at time when both were created (and still failing "notability"). Sotty I chose Keep and I still saying keep. Tb hotch Ta lk C.  01:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This discussion is not about what other stuff exists, but seeing as we are on the topic... "Tabloid Junkie" is independently notable because it is covered in numerous sources that provide ample information on its background, composition, recording, and critical reception. The same is true for D.S. (song), which is also noted for being an attack on Tom Sneddon and a song that was frequently heard during Jackson's 2005 trial. I'm still waiting on a good reason to keep this article...  Pyrrhus  16 02:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that this article has enough reference and an interesting enough backround story to be justifiable. It is one of my favorite songs of all time and is the third most popular song from Invincible on iTunes (After You Rock My World and Heaven Can Wait). OttomanJackson (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The little information that is there can be merged to the album article, as is the process for ALL non-notable album tracks for any artist. That the song is your favourite is irrelevant to this discussion.  Pyrrhus  16 21:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with that move from single because cation to is promotional, that means it is not for sale therefore should not have the infobox single, clear example can be Stairway to Heaven or Better Than You, If not me that will change. --Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Wow, the article looks a lot better with images. And, hah, it is a single! Silver  seren C 00:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The song is promotional, like "Polly", --Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 00:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a promotional single, not a proper single and it does not matter what the article looks like with a few images. It still fails the notability requirements for music.  Pyrrhus  16 10:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, now that I've verified that the song was released as a promotional single and reliable sources are being used in the article with a reasonable amount of information, I think this song should have it's own article. Crystal Clear x3 23:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Promotional singles are not proper singles and all of the information in the article can be merged to Invincible (Michael Jackson album). Many of the sources used in the article are not reliable and the song has not received significant, independent, third-party commentary. It is discussed in relation to the album, not on its own. It fails WP:NSONGS.  Pyrrhus  16 23:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep MTV said he performed the song at a notable event . Hard to filter out the horde of Google news results for just the song Speechless, and not all the many times people used the word speechless for something other than the song, with Michael Jackson's name in the news as well.   D r e a m Focus  06:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. WP:SONG states, "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Notability for the song is not established and it is looking like it will never progress beyond stub status. NSONG also says 'most songs are not notable' At present there is nothing in the article other than it has been featured on an album and a film (however notable that film and artist are - but remember, notability cannot be inherited, not even by a song!) Wikipedia would not lose one iota of information if this article became a redirect to the album and/or film, Wikipedia and the coverage of the Michael Jackson and the film would actually improve by such actions. --Richhoncho (talk) 07:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is already far, far above stub status, so that first point is irrelevant.
 * There is far more in the article than just that notability. The sources establish notability. Wikipedia would not lose a lot of information if a number of articles were redirected to related parent articles, but those parents articles would become far too cluttered. The amount of information currently in the article that is clearly sourced shows its notability and also that it would be extremely complicated and cumbersome to merge all of it to a parent article.
 * Furthermore, the song actually works with WP:NSONG. It meets the basic notability guideline, with significant coverage about it. The artist and musician of the song is clearly notable, circa Michael Jackson. While it is true that singles (promotional singles included) are not generally notable, they are considered such if they have significant coverage, which this article has. Like I said in the beginning of this comment, the article is long enough. Also, it has been performed by various notable musicians. Now that I think of it, we have yet to add that in there, but there are sources about it. I'll have to get to that. Anyways, that covers the entirety of WP:NSONG and the notability requirements therein for songs. Feel free to comment in reply and say which parts of what i've said here are wrong, but please explain in detail why they are wrong if you are going to do so, so we can see if they can be fixed. Thanks. Silver  seren C 07:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There's no point arguing about the size of the article, it has certainly grown since I made the post above. The real debate is whether the song is notable. As I said notability is not inherited so whether it is recorded by Michael Jackson, the Pope or Johnny Unknown is irrelevant. I now make a comment regarding the references supplied, because at no time is notability established :-
 * Salon: Confirmation of inspiration for lyrics (now a dead link). All songs are “inspired” by something, what makes this notable?
 * NME, Speechless is a Grease finale gut-wallop of a ballad with a choir of heavenly Michaels hovering on high” This is a one-line review, not an establishment of notability.
 * Liner notes: References?
 * Vibe: Repetition of inspiration for lyrics.
 * Music notes : Sight of sheet music.
 * Megan Turner : “Among the songs played to the Sony execs last week were "Speechless.” Confirmation the song exists, not notability.
 * Discogs & Allmusic: Directory entries only
 * MTV: “There's a performance of "Speechless" from Invincible before the scene cuts to a Culver City, California” Now we know it is in a film, but is every song in a film automatically notable?
 * What I will say though, I like the part of the article that covers the music and lyrics, key signature etc. It's the reason I sat for a couple of days before commenting at all. It's a shame that all song articles don't cover this point (but it still doesn't establish notability!)
 * I am not going to respond any more on this debate, I have made my point, if you hadn't asked me to I wouldn't have commented again. There's far too many notable songs where the articles are in desperate need of improvement without having a Wiki-battleground over every song. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Im Partial to Delete because i have a pet peeve for articles about songs that have not charted but i am also okay to a Redirect STAT- Verse 00:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So, what you're saying is that you are automatically prejudiced against articles about uncharted songs and also have no valid policy-based reason for your vote? Silver  seren C 05:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Harel | Talk to me 04:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Having reliable references.
 * Keep Notability is proved by it's numerous references. Honestly, if this was the worst article about a song on WP we would be pretty well off. I don't understand the excitement around this particular article. – Ib Leo (talk) 17:46, 19 April 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.