Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Man Who Never Lied


 * 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. This was a difficult close, so I'll explain my rationale. The crux of the debate comes down to whether appearing on the Gaon singles chart is enough to provide notability for a song, given the chart's unusual way of dealing with albums (specifically, WP:NSONG #2). This is particularly tricky as that specific criterion is currently under discussion.

In crude numerical terms, we have 7 people supporting the use of Gaon in this situation, and 4 opposing it; a majority, but not a large one. The arguments to keep the article propose that we should take NSONG#4 at face value and accept the Gaon chart as enough to provide notability. This is supplemented with sources which contain minor references to the song, or references which discuss each song on the album individually. The delete votes question the extent to which these sources can establish notability and argue that Gaon should be treated differently because it handles albums in a differen tway, making it easy for songs on a charting album to chart individually.

The delete votes win the argument about sources: they adequately show that the current sources are not sufficient to establish notability. Regardless, the strength of the keep votes is in their interpretation of NSONG#2. Both sides offer strong, policy-based arguments, so that debate seems to end up pretty even. The result of the debate about the chart will determine the result of this AfD: if Gaon counts, the article should be kept; if it does not, it should be deleted. The relative equality (both in terms of numbers and arguments offered) leaves me no option but to close this as no consensus. Because there is an ongoing discussion about NSONG#2, it would be wise to revisit this article when that discussion has concluded.. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 23:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

That was a lengthy rationale and this might be contentious; I'm happy for people to leave me questions at my talk page (you might not get a reply until tomorrow, though). ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 23:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The Man Who Never Lied

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I was reviewing this for GA and when checking the references I noticed that the song isn't the subject of any of them. The subject of the articles is the album that this song appeared on, not the song itself. Below is my analysis of the refs.

Unless I am mistaken, the Gaon Chart lists songs indivdually when purchased in an album. The album charted at #4 and this is the fifth song on the album. This song was not released as a single, so the song didn't chart independently of the album and notability is not inherited.

I don't believe this song is notable, it appears that it's being masked by lots of references, but unfortunately none of them are good enough (in my opinion). James086 Talk 14:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - There is info about the song specifically, and it did chart. Wikipedia is about building an Encyclopaedia of information. —  AARON  &bull; TALK   15:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Agree with Aaron above, there is no need of having separate online reviews for the specific song, the album reviews are fine to be used. — Tomíca (T2ME) 17:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not the subject of those reviews, as required by WP:NSONG to prove notability. It explicitly says "The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the song/single," which is the case here. I'm not suggesting that the comments about the song are invalid for inclusion in the article, I'm saying that they aren't enough to prove notability. James086 Talk  17:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note to closer: Tomica is the primary author of the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * No no no no no. Album reviews confer notability to the album. To meet the WP:GNG you need song specific reviews or at the very least album reviews that have a large focus on the song in question. Charting is just a presumption that these sources exist, when they come here you need to produce those sources. AIR corn (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not even singles get that many reviews now, so that's a weak point to make. —  AARON  &bull; TALK   23:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Then those singles probably won't meet the GNG either. AIR corn (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, so according to you we should delete all the singles that were not reviewed separately from the album hm? — Tomíca (T2ME) 13:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What singles? I still don't see how this is relevant to this discussion? If they have coverage in sources then they would be fine, if they don't then they run the risk of being nominated for deletion. AIR corn (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. The song didn't chart as part of the album, that is not possible. It charted due to individual sales, meaning that people bought that song specifically, not just the album as a whole. The song charted very high on a national chart and while there isn't any article discussing the song in great detail (not many song articles have this, mind you, sometimes not even singles), I believe that there is enough information here to establish some sort of notability that is alright with me. — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 21:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, as per nom and Aircorn. - SchroCat (talk) 11:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom and Aircorn. I'm skeptical of the sales = notability argument; I'd prefer some reliable sources giving significant coverage. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not a requirement at GNG for songs to have charted. It doesn't matter if they chart or not. So there is no argument here. —  AARON  &bull; TALK   16:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep In three years I've seen the same nominations over and over again, the only thing that changes is the song (or in some cases "it never charted" but it has coverage like D.S. or Speechless). If the problem is WP:NSONGS, go and change NSONGS. What would happen if the fictional song "The Song" charts in 10 countries, but all of them in low positions, e.g. UK 190, US 120, Fra 99, Spa 95, Can 98, etc., and it received multiple album reviews and one or two independent reviews, and that's it. Should we discuss if it is notable? It charted, and as long as it is a requeriment to creation, it must be respected. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  18:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If it received one or two independent reviews then it would most likely meet the WP:GNG (assuming they were reliable etc) so notability would not be a problem. Charting should not automatically guarantee notability, it should just mean that it is likely sources exist that cover the song in depth. Everyone seems to miss the "may" part of "Songs and singles may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria". AIR corn (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets the relevant subject specific guideline just fine. WP:NSONG 1. Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts,  D r e a m Focus  07:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. No independent reviews of the song, just brief mentions in album reviews, and its only charting is entirely dependent on South Korea's combining of album and song sales on its chart: 18 of Gaon's top 28 singles in its debut week were the 18 tracks from the deluxe version of Overexposed, including the remixes. In my opinion, this chart by itself is not evidence of notability for a song from an album. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep per meeting criterion 2 of WP:NSONG. I have trouble justifying the deletion of a well written, well sourced, non-spammy page. If this was a 3-liner I wouldn't consider the listing on the South Korea Gaon International Chart to be enough for a stand-alone page and would recommend a redirect or merge, but there is good stuff on this page and it's not like Overexposed (album) needs to be expanded. So that is the thinking behind my opinion. J04n(talk page) 10:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * By that logic, all songs on an album could be made into articles if the album got enough attention so that each song was given snippet mentions in reviews and "about the album" articles. (This is one of seven song articles so far from an album of twelve songs; there's also an eighth article on a deluxe track.) It actually happens sometimes—every song from Christina Aguilera's latest album had an article before AfDs reduced the number—but just because an article can be written with some "good stuff" doesn't establish notability for that particular song. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If there is enough information to write an article about, then it should have an article. If not then a merger would most likely take place.  Notability has been established by the subject specific guideline created for this sort of thing.   D r e a m Focus  13:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This is case of a song "falling through the gaps" in NSONG. This song only charted as part of the album. It was not released as a single. Using the same notability criterion, every track on every album that enters the GAON chart meets the standard for inclusion such as "Intro" or "Credits". Surely you see the folly of this logic? James086 Talk  19:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Uh, no, it charted on the single's chart. That's mentioned in the lead of the article.   D r e a m Focus  21:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Uh, no, it wasn't released as a single. James086 Talk  21:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The article reads "the song peaked at number nine on the singles chart in South Korea with sales of 31,977 digital copies." Direct download you can buy just one song usually.   D r e a m Focus  22:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * However, the chart also lists songs that were purchased as part of an album. So if you buy the whole album, each individual song on the album gets bumped up the chart. It could be that loads of people loved this song and purchased it, but that seems a very unlikely coincidence when you consider that this song charted 9th, Lucky Strike (the song before it on the album) charted 8th, Daylight (which actually was released as a single) charted 5th, Sad charted 12th and Doin' Dirt charted 15th. I consider that sufficient evidence to say that it didn't perform well in this particular chart on its own merit; it was only on the chart because it was on the album that sold well (Overexposed). Not all charts work this way, the GAON chart is the only one I know of that works this way. James086 Talk  22:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep NSONG #2.  I grant the GNG case isn't clear, but there's a wide breadth of small mentions, not only what's in the article, but, , , . . I'm left echoing J04n --j⚛e deckertalk 21:29, 5 April 2013 (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.