Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vulnerable (Selena Gomez 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.  JGHowes   talk  01:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Vulnerable (Selena Gomez song)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:NSONGS. No indication of notability except for four chart positions, of which the only official chart position is for Canada. The rest are barely top 100. The song has not received extensive review/coverage regarding its music and/or lyrics. Not enough material for a standalone article. HĐ (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete There is one good source, from Idolator called lost hit, it could be included on the alvum page for sure. The rest on the information comes from album reviews, interviews with the singer and a mention on a top 100 with no text to it. Charting is not an indication of notability. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although short, the article isn't stub-length and is expandable with more coverage of the song from sources about the album. Additionally, its inclusion on a list of the best songs of 2020 by Idolator and Glamour, plus a Heavy.com article analyzing the lyrics of the song itself, plus the chart positions, gives it independent notability. Also, the nominator is seriously downplaying the significance of the chart positions to the point of erroneousness. All charts are official of their country; it's total nonsense they're unofficial just because the peaks aren't in the top 100. Entering the top 200 is just as difficult as the top 100. Also, while charting itself is not a definite indication of notability, it damn f---ing sure strongly adds to it. 👨x🐱 (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with what HumanxAnthro said. Lesliechin1 (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment it looks like HĐ was trying to say that the Canadian chart included (Canadian Hot 100) was the only primary chart of a nation listed as opposed to a component chart (and primary charts are far more important because they actually represent overall popularity within a country unlike components), though am pretty sure this is the main thing for Portugal. For the record, the main charts for New Zealand and the US are respectively NZ Official Top 40 singles and Billboard Hot 100, not New Zealand Hot Singles or Bubbling Under Hot 100. In any case, numbers reached there are irrelevant to notability or whether charts are official. Just thought this bit of clarity would help. I did find another Idolator piece specifically focusing on the track, but a brief passing mention from this isn't enough to count towards notability. While the Glamour piece linked above offers more depth for its "best songs of 2020" list than Idolator does, I would prefer more than just a cumulative paragraph. With that said, I guess it comes down to whether we can trust Heavy.com (I'm not sure how credible that publication is). Either way, album reviews don't count towards notability for songs. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I would still consider charts like "Bubbling Under" and "NZ Hot Singles" to be significant given how difficult they are to enter. There are 24,000 to 60,000 tracks released daily, yet only 200 or 100 or 50 will make it to an official top chart of a country weekly. The only thing bubbling under charts do is give the songs 20 to 25 more chances to make it, which is saying absolutely nothing. 👨x🐱 (talk) 12:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per 👨x🐱 --K. Peake 07:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I am absolutely for splitting album articles into tracks if it gets so extensive with coverage about the writing and composition and production of certain songs it gets WP:TOOBIG. I've proposed this for Swift's folklore, and we already do this for every Beatles studio album ever. Looking at the article about the album which this song is from, Rare, although well-cited, it's pretty small in comparison to Folklore and I don't know if that is because it's non-comprehensive. I wouldn't mind merging the song into the album as well if the album can fit it, but I would also say to have that article list all the chart positions of non-album tracks as well (and singles if you want to list those) because those are still official charts. 👨x🐱 (talk) 12:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as the article is backed by enough media coverage and she even has a collection on her multi-millionaire make up brand named after the track . The song has also managed to reach main charts as in Canada and Portugal, plus I think we shouldn't underestimate its presence in Bubbling Under (at the end of the day is the continuation of Billboard Hot 100) or Hot Singles charts as there are articles of songs that haven't even managed to charts. What gives a song more notability than actually selling enough to appear on any kind of chart? Anonpediann (talk) 11:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The idea that entering any charts by itself inherently equates to notability is a common misconception. WP:NSONGS specifically says charting indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable. Don't treat "may be" as a synonym for "is". What truly matters per WP:NSONGS is whether any publications not affiliated with the artist cover the track in pieces that aren't album reviews, and not just brief mentions (e.g. a cumulative paragraph or less isn't enough). Commentary from artists themselves or involved labels, producers, or songwriters discussing the works don't count towards notability because that's just self-promotion. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * " Commentary from artists themselves or involved labels, producers, or songwriters discussing the works don't count towards notability because that's just self-promotion." That is total nonsense. I could understand if it's WP:PRIMARY sources doing this, like an Album commenterary, Twitter posts from the artist, or liner notes, but if independent secondary sources are the ones interviewing, that is so not true. 👨x🐱 (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect to Rare (Selena Gomez album). The only thing "worth" creating an article for this song is the two reviews (the composition is just a repeat of the info in the album article, the credits are irrelevant, and the charts are already in the discography). However, only one of the two is not in the context of an album review. Even with the reviews, there's only two, which is certainly not worth creating an article for, and could be incorporated in the album article (or not). Also, charting on the Canadian Hot 100 is really not that hard; Billie Eilish's "!!!!!!!" somehow charted at number 79 despite being 14 seconds long; it's a joke. Charting is not coverage, and you need coverage for an article. Heartfox (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "charting on the Canadian Hot 100 is really not that hard" I seriously hope you're being sarcastic. Billie Ellish has a different level of elite notability 99.9999% of artists don't have, so of course it would be easy for her to get "!!!!!!!" on the Hot 100. Users need to stop downplaying the significance of official charts from major recorders of data like Nielsen Soundscan, because it is based in an ignorance of the music industry and more on casual hearsay. 👨x🐱 (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My point is just because something charted doesn't mean it warrants an article. Heartfox (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I will keep debunking this myth because too many users are spreading it around. Charts are still as HARD if not HARDER to enter than in the past. The fact that Soundcloud, social media platforms and consumer-accessible digital audio workstations added changes nothing; it's only saturated the market further and made even harder to gain streams and views, with algorithms controlled by bigger companies moreso now than ever. This is all based in evidence, especially as Billboard has decreased how dependent streaming is in their charts' methodology so that radio play and sales play a far bigger role, and the accessibility of self-releasing and making music has only made it more difficult to get on the charts. Anecdotes about this one artist and this other artist getting their song popular and viral at random debunk f---all, and we need to stop being ignoramuses about the music industry. 👨x🐱 (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ashley  yoursmile!  04:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Rare (Selena Gomez album). The song did receive some independent coverage, but I do not believe it crosses over into significant coverage. I generally love seeing album tracks get articles (and I actually really like this song in particular), but I believe this has only received a limited amount of coverage, and this information can be discussed within the main album article. Aoba47 (talk) 20:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.