Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yeah, Yeah, Yeah! (Voices 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 redirect to Voices (American band). (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 09:00, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, Yeah, Yeah! (Voices song)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:NSONG. While the song charted, there does not appear to be significant coverage on it from third-party, reliable sources to justify a separate article. Aoba47 (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. You said in your nomination that it charted, which is the very first point in WP:NSONG, so I'm not seeing how it fails.  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 13:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If you read WP:NSONG, it says that charting may indicate notability. It does not say that absolutely does. Notability is more so tied to significant coverage from third-party, reliable sources. Aoba47 (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Blogs are the only thing I found. Some of you don't kow how to read, regarding charting "Note again that this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable." MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The last time I checked, AllMusic was not a blog. (Also, chill out with the smart remarks.)  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 22:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The AllMusic source doesn't have a review on the song. What are you even talking about? I just point out to read the guidelines carefuly. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Where in WP:NSONG does it indicate that the AllMusic source has to have a review?  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 23:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You were saying that AllMusic was not a blog, indicating it had more than the mention of the song, it doesnt have a review of the song. Proving the existence of a song doesn't guarantee it a article. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  23:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:21, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, I guess. ("Vote" now changed to "Userfy" per my comment below.) There really doesn't seem to be anything at all written about this song, that I could find. The Discogs and AllMusic entryies are just bare listings. I guess the question is whether proof of existence is sufficient to carry an article that was in the Billboard top 100. Maybe... but (FIWI) we don't have a guideline saying so, and "top 10" or "top 40" might be a better standard, and rather than separate articles for every charting song it might be better to have a different way to handle these, lists or what have you. Herostratus (talk) 10:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If that's how you feel, then I suggest you initiate a discussion to change the rules of WP:NSONG, rather than suggesting to delete an article that passes the guideline in its current form.  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 23:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The article does not pass the WP:NSONG guideline. As I have already said above (and as MarioSoulTruthFan has already said above), charting may indicate notability, and notability is established by proving that the song has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works. The guideline is very clear on this. I do not see any evidence that this song has received significant coverage. Aoba47 (talk) 23:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's right, and even if it did, Notability (music) (which NSONG is in) is a guideline (=suggestion). It's an important and often-followed one, true, but right at the top it says "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. I just don't think that every song that is gets in the Billboard top 100, if there's nothing much written about it, rates an article. I do think than any song that reaches that top 10 should rate an article, even if there's nothing much written about it. Even top 40 would be possibly reasonable. My common sense tells me that below the top 10 (or top 40), it should probably go in a list. We do have many Billboard list articles (List of Billboard Hot 100 top-ten singles in 2021, List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s. "List of Billboard top 100 singles of [year]" would be a reasonable article IMO (altho it would be a long list, easily over 1,000 entries I suppose, and might also get deleted). So, if somebody wants to make that article (starting as a stub I suppose) and put this song in it, and keep the song name as a redirect to that article, that is a solution I would support. The entry could include the artist, songwriter, peak postition, and maybe label and producer, which all we really have in the article anyway. Thus I now support Userfy to save the material for this future article. Herostratus (talk) 16:48, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Why not instead redirect to the Voices (American band) article where the information on the song and its chart performance can be shown and supported through citations? This song is already in a table there, and if that article ever gets expanded, I would imagine that the song would also be discussed in the prose. If this article gets redirected, I would imagine redirecting it toward the group article would be more helpful to readers than a Billboard list? Aoba47 (talk) 21:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course, redirect. Most deletions should leave a redirect behind, of course. Apparently this is often not done, which is silly, but I can't help that. If the article does get flat deleted (or userfied), just make a new redirect under the same name, that's perfectly legit. Herostratus (talk) 18:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Voices (American band) Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:41, 8 May 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.