Talk:You Missed

Sourcing problem

Much of the article is sourced to a Forbes.com piece by Hugh McIntyre. This presents several problems. One is that the article, which went up on the site at 6:30 PM on the 14th, had already been taken down by 1:42 AM the next day. Even allowing for any time zone difference between Forbes and the archive, that page had not been up for half a day, and Forbes usually leaves things up for many years -- this appears to have been some form of a retraction. Another problem is that the author, McIntyre, is listed as a "Senior Contributor"... which in Forbes terminology means that their website hosts his blog, and that per WP:FORBESCON, we treat it as a self-published source. This means not only that we can only us it at all if McIntyre is a recognized expert in his field (and he may be, I am unfamiliar with him), but that even then, we cannot use this source for any statements about the musical artist himself. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

This is just a typical request to delete content someone does not like. There are plenty of other references than the ones mentioned in by the requester. This should be easily denied as there are references to the raise of the song from other sources that track their own numbers.(Itunes for example.) 2603:6011:FF0:8B00:5ECE:AB25:5A80:6B31 (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the content sourced to this (barring the one sentence I already removed as misrepresenting the source.) I am an experienced Wikipedia editor noting sourcing concerns. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that demonstrate notability? All I can find is a The Sun article (not reliable) a Forbes.com blog piece (not reliable), a MRCTV article (not reliable), and a Sportskeeda article (not reliable). I was genuinely expecting more coverage when I found this article but there just isn't any. C F A 💬 15:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Did the reader learn anything?

Self-removing first comment for tone

One look at the cover, and I already knew with my eyes closed what the rest of the article was going to say. It's always the same old tale, be it Trump's talking point lyrics, the post-attempt popularity, democrats' criticism, and republicans' praise. In my AfD comment, I cited WP:NSONG, Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 23:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

For the record, this article does not 'praise republicans': that's not only violates NPOV but is not what Wikipedia, or I for that matter, stand for. On multiple occasions, the phrase "he believes" is used to show the right-wing comments are MacDonalds beliefs, not fact. The article also includes a critical response from Roger Friedman to the single. Being a song targeted at a Republican audience, more right-wing sources naturally reported on it, but if more left-wing or sources critical of the single make themselves available, they will be included.

For your other comment: 12 sources were used as of writing. When I created the article, I thought the single would get more coverage than it did judging by how fast it rose in popularity on YouTube's music charts. While that never really happened, WP:BOLD edits like these are what get articles off idea lists while they're still popular and being searched for. While this comment wasn't directed at me specifically, I wrote much of the article, and took this personally. We're all trying to make the encyclopedia a better place, not write "the same old tale". For these reasons, I do hope you can take back some of your comments if not by striking then just personally. Johnson524 03:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I meant "praise by republicans" not "praise of republicans" by "republicans' praise": "real political art"

Wikipedia:Guide to deletion § Please do not take it personally and Wikipedia:Notability § Notability is not temporary.

The close paraphrasing was about half of that section repeatedly using a single source and having the same order of keywords.

The spirit of WP:N is to have enough sources to write an article on. Look at a FA like Blank Space, which writes about:

• Intended character portrayal in the lede

• Perhaps "I made this beat, wrote this song & shot the video last night" can be expanded on

• Analysis of symbolism at Blank Space § Lyrics and music

• This article just restates the lyrics. This is a plot summary without real-world relevance. There should be sourced commentary

• Significant critical reception and awards

• Only passing WP:NSONG won't produce a good article. This is currently just another run-of-the-mill candidate. Show the reader why this republican song's impact stands out from democrats' TikToks.

What needs to be done is not "[you] do hope [I] ...". The AfD is at 50% redirect, 50% wait, and 0% keep. Someone needs to go to articlespace and actually expand the article with some relevant RS coverage to save it. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 15:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be talking down to this person as if you are some sort of special on high and he can't possibly be reading and following what is going on himself. What you now have is people not jumping to make whatever changes you might like to see, but rather just looking askance at your methods. Perhaps you should be learning from this. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:DISENGAGE ~ Johnson524 01:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't expect this response. Somehow my words were taken differently than I intended. I am sorry I sounded condescending. I am learning as this is my first time applying the guidelines and essays I'm citing.

TL;DR: I was trying to help by suggesting ideas to pass WP:GNG if the article doesn't pass WP:NSONG. These were meant to be friendly suggestions, not orders (I !voted redirect). If there other ways to pass AfD, go ahead. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 02:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)