Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stressed Out (Twenty One Pilots 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. slakr \ talk / 19:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Stressed Out (Twenty One Pilots song)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article fails WP:GNG which states, in part, "has received significant coverage". The five references here are the best available on the net. It's likely a case of WP:TOOSOON and I placed a N:Music tag on it, but an editor seems to think that it doesn't belong. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * http://genius.com/Twenty-one-pilots-stressed-out-lyrics is the song's lyrics, which doesn't lend any credibility to the song.
 * http://www.altpress.com/news/entry/twenty_one_pilots_long_for_the_good_old_days_in_somber_stressed_out_video is a three-sentence description of the video. Not significant coverage.
 * http://www.mtv.com/news/2145391/twenty-one-pilots-blurry-face-stressed-out-video/ now nine sentences. Borderline significant coverage.
 * http://radio.com/2015/04/28/twenty-one-pilots-stressed-out-video/ Down to seven sentences. Again, not significant coverage.
 * http://diffuser.fm/twenty-one-pilots-stressed-out-music-video/ Finally, four sentences. Again, not significant coverage.
 * Strong Keep I'm the editor who doesn't believe the tag needs to be there as this clearly passes WP:NSONG, I added references to the articles to better establish notability before this AfD. If nothing else, at least the MTV and Radio.com references are reliable sources, and with this many google news hits so shortly after it's release it's obviously a notable single from a notable artist. It's unfair for the nominator to state that the above links are the "best available" on the net, he just picked the refs directly from the article, the first one is just a lyric yes (added by the original page creator) and is obviously not a good source, even more obviously not one of the "best available" (although the fact that it is already up on every major lyrics website says something about the notability of this song as well) so I encourage other editors to do their own research before giving their input. Finally, since when do we start counting the number of sentences per article to determine if something is significant coverage or not? Articles specifically talking about the song, and it's meaning are plenty for a start or stub class article, and will obviously expand beyond that quickly. The coverage is significant enough. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As one of the authors of WP:NSONG, I can assure you it's not a stand-alone criteria, it's a way to help determine if GNG has been met, and as I pointed out above, it clearly hasn't. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Everyone, the page can now stay, the song officially charted on Billboard Hot 100. -- Tartufo  ( msg )  10:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As soon as it gets press for making that chart it can stay. Charting is not a stand-alone guarantee. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Even if it didn't chart, it could still stay due to the fact there there is plenty of coverage for a good WP:STUB, this chart position just proves that it will continue to improve in article quality. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * But none of those sources meet WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * But Alternative Press isn't a reliable source? MYS  77  ✉ 04:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you read what I wrote? Please quote where I stated it wasn't a RS? I don't believe I stated it wasn't a RS. I wrote three sentences about a video isn't significant coverage. And to counter Kokoro20, even if ten sources had only three sentences, it would only be the equivalent of one RS giving it significant coverage. We don't even have ten. We have very few. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * But the sources I mentioned have several sentences, not just three. You might disagree with me, but I am quite convinced that this passes the notability guidelines. Kokoro20 (talk) 18:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see those sources. I listed and analyzed the ones I've seen above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the MTV and Radio.com sources. Kokoro20 (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I commented on those above. Between the two souces I count sixteen sentences. Not paragraphs, sentences. Not significant coverage by any standard. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't understand why this rudeness. I only asked a simple question. Back to the subject: 99% of Wikipedia pages don't have a reference for every single sentence wrote in it. Three reliable sources and making through the charts is more than enough to pass the notability guidelines. Other song articles have less content (and references) than this one and nobody is complaining about it. MYS  77  ✉ 05:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. I am not trying to be rude. I called you no names. I didn't question your ability to count. All I did was state that I counted sentences and length of works and in my opinion the sources do not in any way merit significant coverage. As for other articles, please read WP:OSE. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: There's plenty of coverage for the music video. You don't need sources with 10 paragraphs or whatever for significant coverage. The MTV and Radio.com sources should at least be good enough for that. Kokoro20 (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: Already made the charts, thus passing WP:NSONG. MYS  77  ✉ 04:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't understand NSONG. Show me were others have written about it making a chart? It's not notable because it made a chart. It's notable when someone writes about it charting. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Two articles (One and two) talking about the song's charting. The first one, with far more details than the second, but still mentioned at both. MYS  77  ✉ 05:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The first offers nice coverage in the first of three paragraphs, and is starting to add weight to significant coverage, albeit across multiple sources. The second reference is a one-line mention. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Enough sources to at least survive as a stub. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 21:35, 14 May 2015 (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.