Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time Flies (Tori Kelly 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 12:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Time Flies (Tori Kelly song)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Entirely unsourced article for a song cover. All sources found reference the original Drake song or are mainly about the extended play it's featured in, Solitude (Tori Kelly EP). Fails WP:NSONG. Jalen Folf  (talk)  04:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  Jalen Folf   (talk)  04:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak Keep - I'm not very passionate about it, but this one might be keep-able per policy. The article's creator added some sources after the AFD nomination, including a dedicated story at Billboard (currently footnote #3 in the article), and I also found this: at ABCNewsRadio, which has been deemed generally reliable at WP:RSMUSIC. Here's another:  from a source called UDiscoverMusic, which has not been analyzed as reliable or unreliable at WP:RSMUSIC. There might be enough for a stub article. Another reason for my "weak" vote is that one could consider those sources to be more about the associated album than the song, depending on your interpretation. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 22:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete If nothing more can be written about the song other than it was a single, it's a perma stub and does not meet WP:GNG. At most, the usable content could be merged with Solitude (Tori Kelly EP). Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Solitude (Tori Kelly EP). I greatly appreciate the sources provided by Doomsdayer520, but I do not think there is enough significant coverage to support an independent article. However, I think a redirect would be more helpful for readers than outright deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'd probably support a redirect to Solitude (Tori Kelly EP) as suggested by Aoba48, but I'm not convinced the EP is going to pass notability either... I'm waiting for its release first. Richard3120 (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: The cover song and its EP have received some coverage. The sources indicated by Doomsdayer520 are indeed reliable. And so is the Billboard article indicated in the article. I also found a a few more reliable sources which talk about the song: LATF, UMG Germany, News Break and Prelude Press. With these, the article is good enough to pass WP:NSONG. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 07:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Question: this is a cover of Time Flies (Drake song), which already exists as a redirect. So if the consensus is to keep, shouldn't Time Flies (Drake song) be recreated and the content of Time Flies (Tori Kelly song) be incorporated into that article instead? Or at the very least, the Drake song should redirect to this one. But it's the same song, the two versions shouldn't direct to two different articles. Richard3120 (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: uDiscoverMusic is not reliable as it is "operated by Universal Music Group, the largest record label in the world and home to the greatest artists in history." See 1, a lot of bias here. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename "Time Flies (Drake song), and incorporate material relating to Drake's version. I am a little on the fence here.  There are multiple reliable sources that cover this song, although they generally say much the same thing and are not terribly in depth.  But this song also charted in its Drake incarnation, and it has now been covered by 2 significant artists.  Deletion would be wrong since there is reliably sourced coverage and redirection would be problematic since with 2 significant versions there is no uniquely appropriate redirect target.  So even if it borders on IAR, the best solution seems to be to keep the article and cover both versions of the song in that article. Rlendog (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2020 (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.