Template:Did you know nominations/Come Alive (Leona Lewis song)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Round symbols for illustrating comments about the DYK nomination The following is an archived discussion of Come Alive (Leona Lewis song)‍ '​s DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination's (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the DYK WikiProject's (talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.

The result was: rejected by  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Afd closed as merge

Come Alive (Leona Lewis song)[edit]

Created by Lil-unique1 (talk). Self nom at 14:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Symbol confirmed.svg Looks fine. Come Alive, the article with the hook and inline citation, wasn't bolded, so I've done that. Article is new, and long enough. This is my first review, so perhaps another editor would take a look at the submission? NinaGreen (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Added quotes around song title; deleted unnecessary year from the hook. I also fixed some mixed tenses in the article, and made sure the hook fact is cited by the end of the sentence (which carries through the multi-sentence quote). The hook still seems long; I would like to suggest a shorter, snappier version:
  • I'd be fine with the shorter hook. NinaGreen (talk) 21:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I've left a message on the article creator's Talk page so that he/she can comment on the suggested shorter hook. NinaGreen (talk) 21:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm fine with Alt 1 if everyone else is. — Lil_niquℇ 1 [talk] 13:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I have one further question, which I should have asked at the outset. It concerns notability. Is a single Leona Lewis song sufficiently notable to merit an article of its own? Perhaps more experienced reviewers can provide some guidance on that point? NinaGreen (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I believe WP:NSONG is the standard notability guideline for songs, including single releases like this one. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Most songs which receive significant coverage from reliable sources are notable per WP:NSONGS, even if they don't chart so long as they are not a WP:STUB. Whilst I agree, coverage might not be as much as other songs, it was mentioned in several of the album reviews, and was performed live several times which warranted coverage by national newspapers. There is quite a fair bit of information about the song which is unique to the subject and isn't really appropriate for the album's page. — Lil_niquℇ 1 [talk] 17:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg My apologies for not having raised the question of notability at the outset, but I now see that "Come Alive" is mentioned 10 times in the article on the album Glassheart, and much of the information is already covered there, including the live performances at the Hackney Weekend and Amberleigh Charity events. I checked Billboard, and the song hasn't charted, and there doesn't seem to be significant independent media coverage of the song. Most of the media coverage involves the entire album and/or interviews with Leona Lewis. The BBC review of the album by Fraser McAlpine is fairly negative, ending with the comment that it's not a fresh start but 'simply another Leona Lewis album'. So all in all I think there's sufficient coverage of "Come Alive" in the article on the Glassheart album, and that a stand-alone article on the song "Come Alive" doesn't warrant a DYK nomination. NinaGreen (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote4.png Second reviewer likely needed, especially one familiar with song articles. Yes, there is overlap, but that is to be expected. The wording is different and there is original content, which is what counts here. The negative review is not a sign that notability is lacking, otherwise Rocky Mountain Horror Show would never have an article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Good suggestion. I looked at the criteria for notability WP:NSONG, and didn't think the article fit the criteria, but I could be wrong. Another reviewer might see it differently. NinaGreen (talk) 03:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
      • If your curious about the criteria, you can check out "Love the Way You Lie", which has some overlap with Recovery. You can see that it has similar approaches to the current article under discussion, including going into more detail on the song than possible in the album's article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Thanks. My problem was that I couldn't see that the article met any one of the 4 criteria specified at WP:NSONG. It hadn't (1) charted, (2) won a significant award, or (3) been independently released, and it didn't appear to have (4) been the subject of 'multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label'. But as I said, perhaps another reviewer would see it differently, and I'd welcome another review. NinaGreen (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg As the above reviewer stated this topic is not notable enough to be included for DYK. It consists of a "background" section which does not directly pertain to the song in question, and is more or less about the album itself and thus discounted. The 'recording and production' section is sourced almost entirely on quotes by Leona Lewis and the album's liner notes, so no notability there. In 'critical reception' we have a bunch of quotes from reviewers of the album, with no significant coverage about this song but only trivial mentions. Finally, the live performances section is solely sourced to Youtube, iTunes, the artist's website, and other sources with no significant coverage. Overall this song is not notable enough to have a stand-alone article and therefore doesn't meet the third requirement for DYK which is "meets core policies and guidelines". Till 10:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Alright, nommed for deletion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Till, there is notability here. "This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews." It has been in newspapers, has been on TV shows and has been in album reviews. There is the notability. Furthermore, album notes are the most reliable form of knowing the songs production. It is not "quoted", it has been put into prose, which the booklet is not. It does in fact meet the third requirement, because WP:NSONG says that an article only needs to meet at least on of the four bullet points.  — AARONTALK 12:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg Leaving this open until the AFD decides notability. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)