Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen (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. The article meets all general and specific notability guidelines needed to have its own article. There is a clear consensus on both keeping and speedy keeping the article, as well as the assertion of its notability per the references studied. — ΛΧΣ 21™ 04:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Stephen (song)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

A track from Kesha's album 'Animal' which was not released as a single. I can't see anything of substance anywhere to justify it having a standalone article - currently this is smoke-and-mirrors, sourced from various snippets from the album sleevenotes, download sites and reviews of the album. Does not meet WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 10:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep and close The article clearly passes WP:GNG. The song charted, it has a music video, and there is commentary on the song and how it came about. Statυs ( talk ) 10:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Totally disagree with the nominator. The article can stand on its own since it charted and has enough information. And as per my Wikipedia knowledge all the sources are GA reliable. So, this article can totally stay. — Tomica   (talk)  10:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Then show me one review or substantial coverage about the track. There aren't any. Sionk (talk) 10:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Take your pick, there's plenty to go around. Statυs ( talk ) 10:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * All the sources that are in the article are enough coverage. What more you want to see? — Tomica   (talk)  10:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And which one of these sources is not a review of the album, or a brief mention of 'Stephen'? Sionk (talk) 10:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * and . As Till said below, "significant coverage need not be the main topic of the source material". Statυs ( talk ) 10:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Lol. That's the way it goes for all the songs that are not release as singles. See for example "Watch n' Learn, "Sins of My Father" or "Run the World. — Tomica   (talk)  10:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. And I'm sure you agree Rihanna, Usher and J-LO are considerably more famous than Kesha. Sionk (talk) 11:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Tomica said "see, for example" as an example of other types of articles that are similar. Popularity has nothing to do with it. The song clearly has notability, on the fact that it has a music video alone. Where would all this content go if it were to be deleted? Check out Statυs ( talk ) 11:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am well aware of WP:BEFORE thankyou. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is exactly about saying 'this exists so this should too'. We need to talk about "Stephen", not other tracks by other artists. Sionk (talk) 11:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer me though. And I already explained the other part to you. Statυs ( talk ) 11:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, we obviously disagree that "Stephen" 'clearly has notability'. In answer to your question, to state the obvious, if the article was deleted the content would be deleted too. Even based on the arguments in favour of keeping the article there is only enough independent reliable information for a very small stub, at best, so we would not be missing a great deal. Sionk (talk) 11:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS should not be an argument against showing a convention. It appears the original argument is to show a precident and not a "these exist and so this should" argument.  The argument is that on the individual merits for this article, examples are… Pmedema (talk) 15:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep and close per WP:SIGCOV, "significant coverage need not be the main topic of the source material" — in other words the sources do NOT have to be directly about the song. It charted, there's coverage, why is this even at AfD? Till 10:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep There is coverage and source material to satisfy WP:V and WP:N. Pmedema (talk) 15:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep It is probably best to look at the sources themselves to see if GNG is met.
 * Rolling Stone interview Three sentences in response to a question.
 * MTV Two paragraphs in a five paragraph piece.
 * Digital Spy Subject of nine sentence article
 * Another Digital Spy piece Part of three songs mentioned in a single sentence
 * BBC One sentence in an eight paragraph album review
 * Digital Spy again Similar to the Rolling stone interview
 * Boston Phoenix Short sentence fragment in a short article
 * Music OHM One sentence in a nine paragraph album review
 * LA times Six words in a twelve paragraph review
 * MTV One paragraph in a four paragraph blog.
 * I don't think this clearly passes GNG like others have said, but it probably just squeezes by due to the first Digital Spy article and the MTV piece. None of the other sources provide significant coverage of the song. AIR corn (talk) 04:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank goodness someone is talking sense at last. I thought I was going mad :) My take on the two more in-depth articles was that they were largely Kesha talking about the track/subject, rather than dispassionate reviews by ANOther. But I respect your input. Sionk (talk) 10:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So somebody is 'talking sense' when they agree with you? I would consider this bordering on a personal attack, the other keep voters have all provided arguments based on policy, so don't get pissed that other people disagree with you and consider their opinion senseless. Till 11:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Citing a policy with no evidence is pretty senseless. AIR corn (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * They don't agree with me. I have consistently argued for deleting this article. I've never come across so many people arguing for 'speedy' keep when the sources are not strong. Much of this article is sourced to the sleeve notes of the album, or the downloaded notes of the sheet music. Much of the 'Critical reception' section was misusing review comments about the album. The 'Music video' section is sourced from the album liner notes and a Youtube video. Two of the 'Speedy/strong keep's are based on the track charting and the fact it has a video - since when was that a criteria of WP:GNG? Sionk (talk) 12:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Pop songs tend to attract pile on keeps. The first !vote argues for a speedy keep and close due to GNG with non-GNG rational, the second is irrelevant, the third one at least gives an argument but in a condescending way, while the fourth just asserts notabilty without saying how. I honestly thought I would be saying delete when I first read this. It is not hard to provide an analysis of the sources and the speedy keeps will get a much better response if they do. AIR corn (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2012 (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.