Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Truth (Gwen Stefani 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 "Asking 4 It" and "Rare", redirect "Truth" to album article. Next time, can WP:BLUDGEONing be avoided? (non-admin closure) SST  flyer  05:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Truth (Gwen Stefani song)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Also nominated:



These articles fail WP:NSONG on the grounds that their subjects have not been been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. A footnote on NSONG adds that The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the song/single, its musician/band or of its publication, price listings and other non-substantive detail treatment.

These articles mostly rely on passing mentions of their subjects (the songs) in interviews, news pieces, or reviews pertaining to the parent album. This is yet another example of a trend that commonly happens within music-related articles: taking a few snippets of reviews and puffing them up into an individual song article, when the content could (and should) be better, and more concisely, used in the album article. Chase (talk &#124; contributions) 20:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I guess I can see where you're going with "Truth", but "Asking 4 It" and "Rare" both have various independent publications regarding the song, that I will be listing below, not to mention are already included in the respective articles:
 * Asking 4 It
 * "Fetty Wap slated to be only guest artist on Gwen Stefani's album"
 * "Gwen Stefani Says Her Kids Are Excited for Fetty Wap Collab"
 * "Gwen Stefani – Asking 4 It (ft. Fetty Wap) Review"
 * Rare
 * "Blake Shelton Reveals His Favorite Songs Off Stefani's New Album – Find Out What It Is!"
 * "Blake Shelton Reveals His Favorite Song On Gwen Stefani's New Album; Is 'Rare' About Him?"
 * "New Gwen Stefani lyrics suggest Miranda Lambert left Blake Shelton"
 * Like I said, I see where you're going with "Truth", but not with "Asking 4 It" and "Rare". Carbrera (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1, 2, and 3 fail this part of NSONG: This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work. 4 does not appear to be a reliable source. (The author credited as an email address, and a Gmail one at that?) That leaves 5, which only confirms that the song indeed exists, and 6, which is not substantial enough to form the crux of an encyclopedia article. And again, NSONG requires having been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. I think the important question is this: if all three of these song articles were to be deleted, would the reader lose any substantial amount of information that is not already present at This Is What the Truth Feels Like, or that could not be included there? Chase (talk &#124; contributions) 21:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm confused with the wording, what's wrong with Source #2? I agree that's an important question, and I believe that the reader would lose a substantial amount of information regarding the songs. If the information included in these articles were merged with the album page, the album article would not read awkwardly, seeming to favor the discussion of three of the album's songs–which makes no sense. "Asking 4 It" has a lot of good insight regarding the recording process that doesn't have a proper place in This Is What the Truth Feels Like; the aforementioned album is by Gwen Stefani, and not Gwen Stefani and Fetty Wap. The Asking 4 It's article inclusion of its critical reception, interview about Wap, and "gimmicky" but "ultra-personal" lyrics what be highly out of place on the parent album's page. Carbrera (talk) 21:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That's where being selective and including only the most pertinent information in the album articles comes in. No one's suggesting that the song articles be copy/pasted verbatim into the album article. That would cause undue weight to be given to the songs, as you noted. And the problem with the second source is that it is based on the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties (in this case, the apparent subject of the song and the artist's boyfriend) advertis[ing] or speak[ing] about the work. NSONG looks to find that reporters, critics, and scholars have found the song worthy of significant discussion without prompting from interviews or tweets by those involved. Chase (talk &#124; contributions) 01:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * But see that's the problem. Especially "Rare" has a good deal of information in the article that is specific to just the song and not the album. Yes, I realize that the info could be cut down and then placed on the album's article, but it wouldn't make any sense to considering the amount of information out there. Carbrera (talk) 07:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep for "Asking 4 It" and "Rare" as both pages have independent publications discussing the song as an individual entity rather than as a passing mention in a larger discussion or review of the album or Stefani's career. Even though I was the one to review and pass "Truth" for GA, I agree with nominator's point that a majority of the references rely on passing mentions of their subjects (the songs) in interviews, news pieces, or reviews pertaining to the parent album. I vote Delete for the page on "Truth" and any relevant or important information should be brought over to the page on the parent album. Aoba47 (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * And not that this is the deciding factor or anything, but all three of the articles you nominated recently have turned into GAs, so I'd like to keep this considered. Thanks Carbrera (talk) 21:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think there's enough independent coverage on these, along with Carbrera noting their GA status. I understand it's WP:NSONG policy for notability but who ever expected media outlets to write articles out of the blue on (non-single) album tracks? That doesn't happen very often unless they become the subject of a performance or controversy for their lyrics, so I don't see why mentions of their content in articles about the parent album are not good enough. (Not intending to start a tangential discussion about said policy, just musing.)  Ss 112  09:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand it's WP:NSONG policy for notability but who ever expected media outlets to write articles out of the blue on (non-single) album tracks? They usually don't. And those songs aren't supposed to have articles. Template:R from song states: There is consensus that the majority of songs do not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Songs should only have an individual article when there is enough material to warrant a detailed article. Chase (talk &#124; contributions) 22:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I believe I stated there is enough material to warrant a separate article. You don't need to quote things I already know at me as if I don't know them.  Ss 112  13:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Your rationale was I don't see why mentions of their content in articles about the parent album are not good enough. I explained to you why. Chase (talk &#124; contributions) 15:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, something I already knew and this is a circular argument. You just repeated the policy and another after my rhetorical point was that the policy/ies isn't/aren't perfect and should be the things in dispute, not a few cherry-picked Gwen Stefani song articles. Yet here we are.  Ss 112  19:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep This is quite the discussion you got going on here. With that being said, I can see both sides in this discussion. Let me start by saying that despite my vote on "Asking 4 it", as I passed it as a GA article, with the others will be fair. Even singles sometimes just have two-three non-album reviews and if there is any relevant information is already on the album. I'm currently in a similar discussion. All in all, Delete "Truth" keep the others. Note: After this discussion is closed I will take a second look at the sources on "Asking for it", regarding non-reliability. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm also starting to think I could really expand "Truth" and dig deep for some standalone information and articles. I'll try my absolute best to make this happen. Like Ss112 noted, it is unreasonable to expect media to write an entire article based off of one song, yet there are thousands of Wikipedia GA entries based upon non-single songs. Stay tuned. Carbrera (talk) 06:20, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * it is unreasonable to expect media to write an entire article based off of one song, yet there are thousands of Wikipedia GA entries based upon non-single songs. – No, it's really not. There are plenty of songs that have significant individual coverage. But the vast majority of songs are not supposed to have articles per notability guidelines. Chase (talk &#124; contributions) 22:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * When I say "one song", I mean a "non-single". Carbrera (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It happens occasionally. Our notability guidelines mean that most non-singles (and many singles, for that matter) should not have articles. Chase (talk &#124; contributions) 23:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Why do Beyoncé's songs from Lemonade still have articles and are not being nominated for deletion? Because they charted on several countries' charts? Is that the deciding factor? Is that the significant independent coverage they need? I mean, there's plenty less notable material on Wikipedia; those songs from Lemonade barely have anything else besides outdated chart links on them. Like, I'm pretty sure we're all familiar with the notability guidelines here, so it's now coming down to "there's not enough material on them" versus "yes, there is".  Ss 112  13:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen the Beyoncé articles in question. Please see WP:WAX; the fact that some articles haven't been deleted (or nominated for deletion) doesn't mean that these shouldn't be. (And I'm not necessarily saying that those other articles need to be deleted.) Chase (talk &#124; contributions) 15:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well if you think these articles should be deleted, by your logic you certainly should be thinking a bunch of other articles need to be deleted too. There are far less notable examples than these, which in my opinion, and several others', are already notable enough. Whatever. After over four days, and it still being at just three against one, I'm thinking this isn't going to gain enough votes to reach a consensus.  Ss 112  20:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * you certainly should be thinking a bunch of other articles need to be deleted too. OK? I do. You can't expect me to round up every article of the sort. I've said clearly that articles like the ones nominated here should not exist. it still being at just three against one, I'm thinking this isn't going to gain enough votes to reach a consensus. Consensus is not based on vote-counting; it's based on the quality of arguments and how they adhere to policies and guidelines, which have mostly been ignored by the keep !votes. Hopefully an administrator will take note of that and relist this relatively untouched discussion if few others comment in the next few days. Chase (talk &#124; contributions) 05:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, and consensus requires more than one opinion and one person arguing against the articles' existence by picking apart every source on them. Articles are not simply deleted because one person has a "quality" argument that they think is in line with policies and guidelines, so, sure. I certainly welcome more input, if it will even happen.  Ss 112  10:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Chase, I still don't understand under what qualifications this policy applies to. Over half of Madonna's latest release has articles for the tracks, and all of them are GA, despite only three international singles and one Italian single being released. So the remaining five are still articles, what's up with that? Plus I highly doubt there's an independent review on each song from multiple sources? I know you're going to quote me on this, but if the article is written well and it's a GA, what's the major problem? Carbrera (talk) 02:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Would you care to nominate those Madonna articles for deletion? This discussion isn't about them. And the problem is that these articles don't meet notability criteria. Period. Very few editors here have attempted to prove otherwise. You and SS112 keep referring back to WAX arguments. And being a good article does not make this exempt from deletion. In fact, since the topics aren't notable enough for standalone articles, that's a violation of the notability guideline which means it shouldn't be a good article. To keep this AfD from going in a circle, I will not respond to any further comments about other articles. They aren't relevant to this discussion. Chase (talk &#124; contributions) 06:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Chase has a point guys, being a good article does not exempt it from being steam rolled through AFD. I just redirected a Madonna GA article, "I'm a Sinner" because it had no independent third party notability (Unlike the Rebel Heart tracks being highlighted above) and failed WP:NSONGS. Simple — I B  [ Poke  ] 12:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, Chase definitely does have a point. However, "Asking 4 It" and "Rare" both have reliable sources, especially "Rare", which was all over a few television series (sources for this are in the article) this past March. And I have to admit, "Asking 4 It" also includes some really good information with trustworthy sources (I personally think it's one of my best works); if you must do something, take a look at "Truth", but I still don't see the problems with the other two. (On a side note, Chase, I don't understand why you put a "not in citation given" notice when it states clearly in the citation what was included.) Carbrera (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * And Chase, you keep arguing that they're not notable whereas Carbrera and I are saying they are, then you tear apart all the sources listed and claim all we're doing are relying on WAX arguments. No. It's not "period", end of story just because you say so. The fact is, they are rated as good articles and I think they deserve more of a discussion than being turned into redirects (and just because "I'm a Sinner" hasn't had somebody saying anything about it yet, doesn't mean they won't). Let's leave the final say in determining their notability up to an administrator or less concerned party to determine, not anybody who's commented here yet.  Ss 112  07:06, 9 June 2016 (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.