Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suga Mama (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The result was Nomination withdrawn. Clear that some discussion of applicability of WP:NSONGS to articles with substantial sourcing is required.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Suga Mama
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is another article in the apparent effort to create articles about every song done by Beyonce Knowles. Songs are required to meet WP:NSONGS before having independent articles. WP:NSONGS incorporates WP:N, and provides additional criteria that are necessary for a song to have an independent article: it must have charted, been recorded by multiple notable artists, or won an award. This song has done none of the three. The sources used are simply mentions in album reviews of B'Day, and provide no justification that this song is somehow extraordinary enough to justify overriding the standard guidance contained in WP:NSONGS:''Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable.'' Nearly any track on an album by a popular artist is mentioned in reviews of the album itself, and it's unreasonable to create an article per track. Efforts to follow the guidance of WP:NSONGS have been redirected, so requesting a deletion followed by an installation of a protected redirect. For those that will claim that only WP:N must be met, I have to disagree: WP:NSONGS makes no sense if read that way. To pass WP:NSONGS, WP:N must be passed first. If the two guidelines were treated as either/or, the tests in WP:NSONGS would have no effect at all. &mdash;Kww(talk) 01:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedily keep WP:POINT. Tb hotch * ۩  ۞ 02:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No WP:POINT violation at all. I redirect or nominate for deletion most articles that fail WP:NSONGS. Always have, and don't plan on stopping.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "don't plan on stopping" ... until someone stops you, like ANI, RFC or ARBCOM. This is getting ridiculous Kevin. "I nominate this article for deletion because someone commented about it in another AFD, while this article exist I cannot delete other articles". Kevin just drop it. Tb hotch * ۩  ۞ 02:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * All articles that fail WP:NSONGS should be deleted in the absence of something unusual about the song that makes it reasonable to override the standard guidance. There's nothing unusual about this song. If people use WP:OTHERSTUFF as an argument for keeping an article, there's no bad faith involved in analysing that "other stuff" and trying to deal with it appropriately. There's nothing wrong in trying to apply a guideline consistently, even if fans of the artists involve resist.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, it's all about fans. Blaming fans of all won't give you credits for do the things you are recently doing. This is not about the notability of song, this is about Beyoncé, because I am not seeing Slug (song) nominated as well. Which, BTW, makes me wonder if "Slug" would passed its FAC nomination, would you redirect it or intended to delete? You have two warnings, do you want the third? Tb hotch * ۩  ۞ 02:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slug_%28song%29&diff=prev&oldid=408457725 was undone, as was my redirect of this song. I don't do mass AFDs. I'll get to "Slug" in a day or two. I think you need to find something actionable to warn me about. I haven't been mass-nominating articles or creating articles that fail guidelines, and I haven't been edit-warring the redirects: I simply nominate the song for AFD after fans attempt to ignore the guidelines.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A comment which never anwered my question. Oh and the disruptive editing finally have warnings Uw-disruptive1 Tb hotch * ۩  ۞ 02:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that you redirected TWO (2) GA Articles, could be citation enough to report. Warnings were issued and you followed through with a AfD page. The fact that you said "and don't plan on stopping" is also reason enough to report, because you have just stated that you do not plan on stopping your vandalism... Theuhohreo (talk) 15:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Not only is the article well-sourced, it is a good article. WP:NSONGS is merely a set of guidelines, it is not a policy.  An article doesn't necessarily have to fulfill every single notability guideline to be notable.  Nowhere in the guidelines does it say that a song must have won an award or appeared on a chart to be notable.  It simply says that most songs that fulfil that criteria are "probably notable".  It also says "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article."  There is most certainly enough verifiable material to create a detailed article, and with 19 reliable sources, most from widely-printed media outlets, you cannot argue with that.   This is most certainly a violation of WP:POINT.  Go ahead and keep redirecting articles without consensus as you please.  If you don't plan to stop, prepare to be blocked. You already have two warnings on your talk page at this moment. – Dream out loud  (talk) 02:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A good article review that failed to take into account that the relevant guideline said the article should not exist wasn't much of a review, was it? I think you will find that nominating articles that fail guidelines isn't considered blockable behaviour: I don't nominate articles en masse, I nominate them as I encounter them.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nominating good articles is not vandalism, but redirecting them without discussion is. As I said earlier, this article does not fail any guidelines.  It does not state anywhere that a song must have won an award, been covered, or appeared on a chart.  You are citing guidelines that do not exist as your reasons for wanting this deleted. – Dream out loud  (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * weak delete, although the article is well written (mostly) and is a GA, WP:NSONGS is the music specific guidance for the creation of individual pages for songs/singles. It is clear policy that songs only inherit notability if they have charted, been nominate for several awards or if they have been covered by several artists. This song has none of those. Also the coverage here is mostly related to coverage of the song as part of B'Day and not as an independent published work, of which songs are counted. Thus I concur that although it may meet WP:GNG, under WP:NSONGS it is not notable and thus should not have an independent page. --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  02:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Vote withdrawn, I have withdrawn my vote for delete for the following reasons. I voted weak delete based on me not being sure of the policies involved. I was willing to change my vote based on the arguments that others have put forward, if they are compelling. In this instance a number of strong keep arguments have been put forward and the nominating user (Kww) has informed me that he will withdraw his nomination based on it being clear that the community wishes such articles to be kept. As the only other clear vote of deletion my vote would restrict the withdrawal of the nomination. Hence I am withdrawing my deletion vote purely because the interests of the community are that articles like this are notable and have no error in creation. I just want to make clear that I don't necessarily agree with the decision to keep this article, on a personal level but my interests always lie in the interests of wikipedia and the adjoining community projects. I concur that the number of votes and arguments in favour of the article show that it has a place amongst the community and thus it would be irresponsible of me not to put the views of the community ahead of my own. --  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  21:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Same as Freakum Dress, and that wasn't even GA. It had a music video and was treated differently than just an album track. Also, if all of Beyonce's songs are notable, they surely deserve their own articles. This is a dubious discussion, really. If it was so worthy of deletion, it wouldn't have made it to the GA review. -- ĈÞЯİŒ  1ооо  02:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The GNG is met. NSONGS is not a part of NOT, which would be cause for denying it inclusion. Rather, the GNG and each SNG, like NSONGS, are two pathways for meeting N.  While this point has been debated before, there is a reasonable consensus that meeting the GNG or the relevant SNG allow for inclusion.  As a procedural point, I strongly dislike discussing good/featured content in an AfD: each has its own review methodology, by which its status can (and I believe, should) be challenged before bringing it to AfD. Jclemens (talk) 03:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no such consensus: it has been discussed several times, and the community has split on the issue. In the case of WP:NSONGS, such a reading is ineffective: because it begins by including WP:N, there's no way for it to provide an "alternate path": you cannot pass WP:NSONGS without having passed WP:N first.&mdash;Kww(talk) 11:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong & Speedy Keep Are you serious with this? It's a GA, phenomenally covered, and reviewed/discussed outside of the parent album. Of course it should be kept!!! It feels as tho the nominator is getting a bit "Article for Delete-happy", and it's really sad to watch.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.160.180 (talk) 04:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral – per Lil-unique, and Dream out loud. Novice7  |  Talk  04:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. It appears to be covered by worthy sources enough to be kept here. The NSONGS list does not state that songs have to have an award, chart appearance, or renditions by multiple music units in order to meet the guidelines; it just says that songs with such attributions are probably notable. It generally does not appear to be a violation of NSONGS. Also, redirecting song articles of this nature without previous discussion is not the best way of dealing with such articles. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 04:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep' Covered by outside sources, same opinion as on "Freakum Dress." Candy  o32  - Happy New Year :) 04:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep There are many refs and its notable Someone65 (talk) 06:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Not as good as Freakum Dress, but still a useful addition to Wikipedia. Meets the WP:GNG. Adabow (talk · contribs) 07:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Definite keep. Deleting a GA article because of a hidebound interpretation of a guideline seems perverse.  Surely there are better directions to invest one's efforts in.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. The song didn't receive a conventional physical release as a single, but it was given promotion independent of the album, so the statement "[i]t wasn't released as a single" is rather misleading&mdash;particularly given that digital downloading is redefining the definition of a "single" (see Billboard). Also, Notability (music) states, "A separate [song] article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; permanent stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." I'm not sure how "reasonably detailed" is defined, but I'm pretty certain that the article isn't a stub. The B'Day article is already very long, and though at a glance it appears to be in need of a little tightening, I'm not sure it would be appropriate for content containing information specific to the song to be included in the album article. In any case, AFD is for proposals for deletion, not merging&mdash;if you think the article should be merged somewhere, please follow the instructions at Help:Merging and moving pages. Notability is rather the issue here. But notability does not mean a song should be released as a single. Also, maybe in other place the song is not notable enough but in Europe, it is. I was thinking also of merging; B'Day was just revamped by me and I personally assert that its long and need professional copy-editing. Everything important in the article is already mentioned in the mother article. Jivesh    &bull;  Talk2Me  15:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And please stop arguments such as being fans and the rest. Jivesh    &bull;  Talk2Me  15:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep and Speedy Keep. To be honest, I am a Beyonce fan (obviously) but i do not fight with/against articles on that basis. "Suga Mama" is a song, that much like "Freakum Dress", has received attention outside of the parent album. Along with a music video release, it has garnered attention as a song in itself. NO it is obviously NOT a single. But if Wikipedia found it to be a GA than who is Kww to try and take away that privilege? And the reason why I say Speedy Keep as well, is because this all just seems pointless and feels as though maybe the nominator could be quite bitter towards Knowles and Knowles-related pages? Theuhohreo (talk) 15:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I wish people would stop accusing me of having some special axe to grind against Knowles. I don't. I redirect virtually all articles I encounter that violate WP:NSONGS, and nominate them for deletion if the redirection is reverted. People attempted to justify keeping Freakum Dress because this article existed, which made me notice it. I redirect articles for failing WP:NSONGS nearly every day. 90% or more stick without a fuss. I've got nothing against Knowles. What I do object to is having two tiers of artists. Songs by Knowles should have exactly the same standards applied as anyone else: her songs need to chart, be performed by multiple artists, or win awards before they get articles. Instead, she has now joined Pink Floyd and the Beatles as a performer that gets articles written about her songs whether they meet guidelines or not, and the articles don't get deleted at AFD because people refuse to apply WP:NSONGS to articles about her songs. That's a shame, but it obviously has become true. If I actually participated in the WP:POINTy behaviour I'm accused of, I would change WP:NSONGS to read "Songs that have been performed by the Beatles, Pink Floyd, or Beyonce Knowles, ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable."&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I redirect virtually all articles I encounter that violate WP:NSONGS, and nominate them for deletion if the redirection is reverted. &mdash; That's only a hair off disruption to make a point, given that you've been told that that's the wrong process before.  If an ordinary editorial action, such as a redirect, is disputed, then the place to go next, per policy and numerous guidelines, is the article's talk page, not AFD.  Articles for deletion is for deletion, as the name states, and is not a big hammer for trying to "win" disputes of ordinary editorial actions that do not involve the deletion tool in any way.  Uncle G (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's neither disruptive nor a misapplication of the AFD process. If an article exists at a point where only a redirect should, the simplest and fastest thing to do is put a redirect in its place without deleting the history. If it gets restored, deleting the article and placing the redirect in its place is the logical next step. Most of the time, I get consensus to do so. There are only a handful of artists and situations where it breaks down.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You happen to keep bringing up the point of WP:NSONGS. However in WP:NSONGS it states "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". Which is exactly what this article (along with "Freakum Dress") is approved of. I don't know the case of the Beatles and Pink Floyd (because I don't know in specifics which songs you discuss above), but the songs I've stated above have "enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" to practically pass WP:NSONGS as well! A music video has been released for the song for promotional purposes and the song has been discussed by Knowles in interviews on different occasions. And the song has been praised by critics, who view the song as an excellent edition to the album. On a side note, I do strike the statement above that states "and feels as though maybe the nominator could be quite bitter towards Knowles and Knowles-related pages?" Theuhohreo (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You misread "Notability aside": that means that even if its notable, it shouldn't get an article if it will only be a stub, not you don't have to consider notability if you can write a large article.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay "Notability aside"... Their is still "enough verifiable material" to make a seperate article on a song here! It is a "reasonably detailed article" which does, in fact, make it pass WP:NSONGS. I am not misreading WP:NSONGS at all, I am in fact reading directly into it and proving this article. Theuhohreo (talk) 19:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2011 (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.