Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You Are in Love

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Brachy0008 (talk | contribs) at 07:57, 25 April 2024 (→‎You Are in Love: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

You Are in Love

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

You Are in Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am dubious whether this article passes WP:NSONG or WP:GNG. The track is not subject of significant coverage, and the current information leaves something to be desired. Suggest redirecting it back to 1989 (album) as a standalone article does not look promising for inclusion atp. Ippantekina (talk) 03:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Ippantekina (talk) 03:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect No significant coverage in sources other than album reviews. We have to start becoming stricter (or at least enforcing the guidelines more harshly) on the notability of album tracks. ‍  PSA 🏕️  (talk) 04:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think album reviews are fine as long as it satisfies GNG ("Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.") So imo it's really a case by case thing, and in this case the encyclopedic content extracted from the existing sources is subpar for a standalone article. Ippantekina (talk) 04:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are sources that do have significant coverage of the song, other than album reviews. [1] [2] [3] These are the three sources that best demonstrate its notability. Brachy08 (Talk) 07:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even so, the encyclopedic content of this article is of merger quality and there is no need for a standalone article when such content could be integrated into the article 1989 (album). Ippantekina (talk) 03:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How so? Brachy08 (Talk) 07:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per Branchy0008. Even the charting satisfies notability. @T.C.G. [talk] 15:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NSONG charting suggests that "a song or single may be notable enough" but it is not a guarantee. Ippantekina (talk) 03:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Most articles about recordings and musicians are notable because of charting especially from Billboard charts. Some articles only rely on chart history sources to establish significant coverage. May or not, as long as it is a criteria for notability, it is what it is! @T.C.G. [talk] 09:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol ok Ippantekina (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 1989 (album) per PSA. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 01:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – received significant independent coverage in American Songwriter, Billboard, etc. There's also an extensive paragraph in Perone 2017. Combined with other album reviews I don't see why this can't be a great article. Heartfox (talk) 13:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the song charting as well as the sources shown in this AfD.
  • Neutral @Brachy0008, @TheChineseGroundnut, @Heartfox and @Elli: If we let this article stand, with doubts about minimum compliance with standards, what will happen is that it will stand, but it would not meet the GA criteria. If the GA criteria are not met, then the 1989 topic will be at risk and will be forced to be removed as a featured topic. What a shame to say (because I know a lot of effort has gone into this article), but the existing articles about the album are better done than this one. Also, you can't do the same thing as with the songs from Midnights (you can notice that all the songs in its standard edition have an article and they are all GA), because the ones from 1989 don't have the same coverage. However, I'll not vote for or against its removal so as not to harm anyone. Santi (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it can be GA. Topic demotion grace period is three months. If by that time it is clear it can't meet GA I would vote to redirect, but right now there are still many sources that aren't used and this article is not near its final state. Heartfox (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Heartfox: Ok, and how which ones? I haven't been able to sit down to review it yet because I have a super tight schedule that I suppose will be light on May 3. Santi (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Words and Music of Taylor Swift has a paragraph about the song, for example. Heartfox (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. But it would then be more complicated because, in my case, I cannot go around buying information books that I will not use later, because I have several old encyclopedias in the library. I don't know about Brachy in this case. Santi (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven’t got much books pertaining this article (or TayTay in general). However, my country has a lot of libraries (one of them having a book about Taylor Swift for children). Also, thanks for spelling my name correctly. Brachy08 (Talk) 07:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/You_Are_in_Love&oldid=1220681454"