Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Real Thing (Gwen Stefani song) (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 keep. This is close, but I see an emerging consensus that the sourcing and content are sufficient for a standalone article, in spite of the amount of coverage coming from album reviews. —&#8239; The Earwig (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The Real Thing (Gwen Stefani song)
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

I am not entirely sure if this song was really released as a promotional single or not, given that Discogs is generally unreliable (WP:RSP). As the article is made up of mostly album reviews (especially the "critical reception" section), and it has not charted on any singles chart, I am afraid this article fails WP:NSONGS. HĐ (talk) 10:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 10:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 10:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep The GA status would suggest it meets WP:GNG.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 11:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Why exactly? HĐ (talk) 13:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well via the GA process. It would have been reviewed by several editors, and I highly doubt an article that does not meet WP:GNG would become a GA.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 15:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've also dropped a note on the GA project's talkpage too.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 15:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As a GA can be reassessed, so can notability. Just to notice that there have been quite a few AfDs for Songs GAs. I don't think a GA status can automatically indicate that the song is notable per-se. HĐ (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment – In one of my sandboxes, I have recently started editing and expanding the article's content to comply with the recommendations of WP:NSONGS. This article has not seen a lot of editing activity in nearly 5 years, which I understand bears zero significance in the case of an AfD, but I would like to make it known that this content is being actively worked on to meet guidelines. Carbrera (talk) 14:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC).
 * Feel free to expand the article. Once the article is expanded, ping me so that I could see the progress. Keep in mind, though, please don't include Discogs as a source. HĐ (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * – I have recently published an edit that greatly expanded the article. The expansion added several sources where "The Real Thing" was the article's main subject (see this Idolator review, this Billboard track-by-track revisit with Stefani, this NME article about the song's development, and this Into the Pop Void anecdote). Other recently added sources discuss Vitamin String Quartet's cover of the song, and the song's early development with several other high profile musicians. Carbrera (talk) 03:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC).
 * Is there a link that verifies this release as a promotional single? I feel like it's pretty much a copy-paste ID from Discogs. Idolator may be okay, but Pop Void is an unreliable source. I'm also seeing sources used from "Gay City News" and "PopCrush" which are not reliable (WP:RSMUSIC). The NME and Billboard sources fall short of what is required to be "independent, non-trivial coverage": only one sentence skimming through is in NME (Undeterred, Stefani went away and wrote the track ‘The Real Thing’ in the style of New Order, which the band then came and played on.) and the Billboard article is a revisit of the album and not the song. If things are cherry-picked from scattered sources like this, I don't think it is fair to say the song has received coverage outside album reviews. HĐ (talk) 04:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not think it is fair to say that I have cherry-picked information from "scattered sources". Despite not being the main contributor to this article in the past, I knew that it was in need of help when you first alerted me of its AfD, and it has long been on my mental list of articles to revisit. I disagree with your stance, and I believe I expanded the article to an appropriate manner that would meet the requirements of NSONGS. In regards to the concerns you raised above, why is the media citation of the CD itself not sufficient? WP:RSMUSIC and WP:ALBUMAVOID both list this format as a generally reliable source. The only information I have obtained from the media is the track listing and length, release year, and label. The NME source is completely about Stefani's attempt to work with New Order on "The Real Thing"; yes, the actual title is only mentioned once but the entirety of the article is about the song's development. I was unaware of the unreliability of PopCrush, so I have removed it, but Gay City News is not listed at RSMUSIC. Into the Pop Void | seems to employ several editors with professional experience, so I do not believe that it is unreliable per se. I think the content introduced in these particular sources is beneficial to the reader and includes information that would be out of place on the suggested L.A.M.B. redirect, only adding unnecessary weight. I am fully aware that a non-radio single from 2005 is not going to have a hundred references about it, but it does have some. Isn't that why NSONGS notes that "the number of reliable sources necessary to establish notability is different for songs from different eras"? I stand my ground when I say that the article should not be deleted or redirected. Carbrera (talk) 15:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC).
 * I will accept the CD liner notes on good faith (to note, I still am very skeptical of the liner notes, as the source claims the single had a promo release in the Philippines, while most editors of the article, including you, are from presumably the U.S.). The RSMUSIC is just a guide, and "Gay City News" not being included in it does not mean it is notable per-se unless there is evidence of editorial oversight. I do not understand how incorporating the NME information into L.A.M.B. would add "unnecessary weight", given that Album background/production sections often incorporate the conception of each and every song, which is a perfectly normal thing. Otherwise, the Idolator and the Void sources are weak for a standalone article. HĐ (talk) 04:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * On another note, the Billboard retrospective article is great material to expand a "Production" section of L.A.M.B. HĐ (talk) 04:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)`


 * Keep – Due to the article's recent expansion and addition of multiple published sources outside of album reviews, I vote to keep this article per my understanding that it meets WP:NSONGS. Carbrera (talk) 03:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC).
 * I appreciate your efforts in expanding the article, but I still have some concerns regarding notability. HĐ (talk) 04:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Love. Angel. Music. Baby. Only real notability evidence is some album reviews. Foxnpichu (talk) 14:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep – An Interscope citation is being used to back up this promotional CD release not Discogs, which is fully reliable. Also, the song has a good number of live performances and other versions mentioned; these definitely show notability. --K. Peake 19:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I will accept the Interscope liner notes on good faith. I do not think NSONGS mention anything about live performances or remixes unless they themselves also attract coverage. Being performed once or thrice does not make a song inherently notable. HĐ (talk) 02:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Love. Angel. Music. Baby. A limited release promo single that doesn’t meet WP:NSONGS is certainly not fit for an article, GA or not. D💘ggy54321 (xoxo😘) 03:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Love. Angel. Music. Baby. - Drastically overwritten like most Stefani Wikipedia articles. However, a quick scan through the references confirms nearly all coverage is dependent on album reviews, no charting information either.--NØ 04:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * A song does not need to chart in order to be notable. Carbrera (talk) 15:34, 17 February 2021 (UTC).
 * Of course not, but it can be an indication that a song might be notable, something this song really doesn’t have. Foxnpichu (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect Love. Angel. Music. Baby.. I don't think Discogs is useless but even it only has cover art. Not a CD, or liner notes, or anything... just cover art. For all we know it's fan-made. It even says "draft" on the right side. Nevertheless, 2005 isn't ancient—there would be more sources if it was notable (maybe it wasn't 2005? who knows... I don't even think this was an official release). Heartfox (talk) 05:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Now that I noticed from the Discogs release, it says "Draft" which I think is by no means an indication of an official release. The "GSPRCD" release ID is also fishy (I may be conducting original research here, but it is quite an abbreviation of "Gwen Stefani Promo CD"), given that label release IDs often contain number-only strings, or a mix of letters and numbers (i.e. "Poker Face", another single from the same label). HĐ (talk) 05:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I want to state that I have this promotional copy of "The Real Thing" in my personal CD collection, and I would have never added it as a citation in the first place if I doubted its legitimacy. The Discogs source being discussed was added over 5 years ago and has since been removed – I am fully aware that is the site should not be used outside of external links on Wikipedia. Anyway, I am having difficulty accepting why this combination of independent sourcing, cover versions (including one by a major group), a promotional release, and album reviews is not enough to meets the guidelines of NSONGS. Yes, a lot of the coverage comes from these reviews of L.A.M.B., but a rather sizable amount of the article's content is also derived from the sources I've mentioned. It seems like everyone interprets NSONGS differently. Carbrera (talk) 15:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC).
 * If you happen to have the promo CD of it, then I'll accept it on good faith. I don't know which "major group" you are referring to, but perhaps you'll find WP:SONGTRIVIA helpful. Aside from album reviews, I am seeing two sources (Idolator and Pop Void), which I am afraid insufficient, to put it plainly (if you count Billboard, then each and every track deserves an article?). Just to note, a single release does not grant notability. HĐ (talk) 15:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am referring to the Vitamin Strings Quartet cover and the accompanying AllMusic review by Johnny Loftus. I realize that not all singles are notable. What's wrong with this NME article? The entirety of the article is about Stefani's attempts in creating the song. I dislike repeating myself, but I feel as if the legitimacy of several sources is not even being considered. In regards to your Billboard comment, I do not think and have never thought that one source equates to notability. I'm saying that Idolator + Into the Pop Void + NME + Billboard + VSQ's cover + everything else should be enough to meet any notability concerns. Carbrera (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC).
 * – I hope you don't mind that I pinged you, but as the original GAN reviewer of this article, perhaps you'd care to weigh in? Carbrera (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC).
 * I missed the NME source, but then incorporating that, it will add up to three (NME, Idolator, Pop Void -- the last of which is dubious). Why do you have to repeat yourself, when I specifically said that those three sources are not sufficient for a standalone article? If most sources incl. Billboard discuss this song as part of the same artistic project (in this case, the L.A.M.B. album), then why a standalone article should be created in the first place? HĐ (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the String Quartet review is on the tribute album and not this song per-se. Stop justifying a song's notability in the concept of album reviews. HĐ (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * By the way, is there any way you could upload the promotional copy of the single onto platforms like Flickr or Imgur? That may or may not determine notability (as I said, single release does not grant notability), but to make sure the information at other Gwen Stefani articles is correct i.e. Gwen Stefani discography. HĐ (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have done no such thing. My argument has never been that – I simply believe that a combination of album reviews and independent sourcing, on the song (in this case), should suffice and is still in compliance with notability guidelines. It is as if there is some imaginary number of sources I need to reach on this article, and I don't think that is reasonable. Carbrera (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC).
 * – I can upload it, but I think you are asking a lot of me. Carbrera (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC).
 * Sorry for being doubtful. I just want to make sure the information is correct, as there is little information on this promo release outside Discogs, which is rather skeptical. I believe this is for the best of this site. HĐ (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I still say my ground that sources on this article are insufficient for a standalone article, and some sections can be trimmed tremendously. I would however leave it to other editors to discuss towards a consensus. HĐ (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect - firstly the whole of the background and release section is about the album and not relevant except for the last two sentences. Additionally the critical reception is all from album reviews, The "Other versions" section is not notable. The track listing and "release" is dubious - it was sourced from Discogs and then replaced with an offline references. Releases like this are for promo purposes and media - not the general public. A release needs coverage in its own right separate from the parent album, otherwise the information could and should be included on the parent album page. GA status is nothing to do with notability - there are lots of examples in the past of well written non-notable topics. With less than 500 views since its creation in 2016 - that's also an indication of its lack of notability. ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 17:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * – This article has received over 23,000 views, not 500. Carbrera (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC).


 * Keep following improvements by Carbrera. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  18:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The bulk of the expansion is from album reviews, to note. (I am not dismissing the three sources above though) HĐ (talk) 05:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment: I honestly do not know about this one. I can understand the argument to redirect this article as it is encouraged to show significant coverage outside of album reviews, and it does look like a majority of the coverage is about the album reviews. I would prefer to leave this decision up to other editors. I just wanted to comment as I have been pinged. Aoba47 (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep due to Carbrera's demonstration of notability. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Love. Angel. Music. Baby. - fails WP:NSONG, coverage mostly from album reviews, the song has neither charted nor received accolades. -- Ashley yoursmile!  10:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect and Comment uDiscover Music is an unreliable source since it belongs to UMG. Billboard does a track-by-track review which in the end is an album review, NME source just states she was inspired by New Order? and they say how their collaboration never came to fruition? The Idolator source is a good one. The Idolator and NME info can be added to the album page. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds like the best idea. Foxnpichu (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. I was being neutral because of the multiple redirects here, but I think that WP:NMUSIC is clear here: "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. Rather, these are rules of thumb used by some editors when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is listed at articles for deletion." And as everyone knows: "Rule of thumb: a principle with broad application that is not intended to be strictly accurate or reliable for every situation". The article is built upon album reviews and should be merged into the parent album? Yes, per WP:NSONGS, but NSONGS also says: "a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article", which is the case here, and nothing here is trivial. Due to the multiple contradictions found at NSONGS, I wouldn't take it seriously beyond an advice page, and I'll stick with WP:GNG, the parent of NSONGS, the non-contradictory guideline that is being satisfied. (CC)  Tb hotch ™ 16:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing up WP:NSONGS as a rule of thumb rather than carved-in-the-stone policy. I do admit NSONGS is sometimes frustrating. Alas, I am waiting for the promo release confirmation to make sure information is correctly represented. HĐ (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * To note, I am still inclined towards redirect--the better alternative is to expand L.A.M.B.'s article (which is currently lacking a "Production" section, and whose "Composition" section is awaiting a much needed update to keep it up-to-par with current Music FAs). I would not however canvass others into taking my side--though I do have quite strong feelings about this one. HĐ (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment – Here are the images that were requested. Unfortunately, the more and more I read some of the comments above, the more I feel my credibility as an editor has been questioned. I've written dozens of GA-quality pages that contain the AV media notes template for promotional CDs and have never been asked to upload photos of the release in question before. I have an extensive music collection and should not need to justify how or why I own an international CD. I understand the request, but considering what led up to it, I am insulted that my use of offline sources has been fine up until this AfD. Yes, I am admittedly a fan of Stefani, but I do not let it interfere with my pledge to adhere to Wikipedia's policies concerning notability and reliability. I want to fight for this article but I am no longer willing to go out of my way to prove myself to others. Carbrera (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC).
 * My intentions were not at all malicious--though I do understand you may have a rough time dealing with my behavior. Probably the Discogs site shouldn't have been listed in the first place, as that site is fishy and has raised quite a lot questions about its reliability, especially since the information site for this song has a "Draft" tag. HĐ (talk) 03:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relisting. There's still no clear consensus on whether the article should either be kept or redirected.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 00:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep There seems to be enough to say about it that a stand-alone article is not out of line, and the only reasonable merge target (Love. Angel. Music. Baby.) is already longish. Album reviews are an entirely reasonable place to look for information about a song, I'd say, bearing mind that a source doesn't have to be devoted to a subject in order to have meaningful content on it. Charting is one reason why a song could be worth documenting, but it's hardly the only reason, just like a book can be worth writing about even if (gasp) it isn't a best-seller. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per XOR. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 03:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per XOR. And because the NSONGS guidance about excluding album reviews becomes silly when there is this much specific content about the song; I would point to GNG in such cases where the album reviews would be included as long as they are reliable sources. Rlendog (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That is to make sure the articles do not stray into excessive details. I have nothing against it, but I have seen quite a few articles that are dramatically overwritten with no substance (note--I am not referring to this article specifically). HĐ (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per how arguments have been made above. ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  18:22, 8 March 2021 (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.