Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craigslist (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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Craigslist (song)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails WP:NSONGS in that it has not charted on a national record chart, nor has it been performed by multiple notable artists or won awards. Additionally its not notable per WP:GNG. An independent article simply isn't required where there isn't sufficient detail for a lengthy and comprehensive article. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 01:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, pending release and development of the next album article Alpocylpse. This article passes the GNG clearly (NPR, Spinner and Cnet are reliable and secondary sources), but it is on the short side. A merge is possible if the album article (which will contain this song) is short and can be organized to include this, but that can't be assessed until after the album's out. Note to the nominator that the criteria in NSONGS does not superceed the GNG - they are meant as an alternative if the GNG cannot be met immediately as a sign of presumption of notability. --MASEM (t) 02:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, songs should not be created in anticipation of notability. WP:NSONGS makes that very clear. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 21:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Er, this has notability by the GNG. This song was out way before it was known it would be on a retail album. --MASEM (t) 22:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being out for months means nothing in relation to notability. WP:NSONGS is a project based guideline policy for music which specifically applies GNG. It states that aside from having enough information (sourced from reliable third-party sources) for songs to exist as independent articles, they must chart and/or receieve recognised awards or being covered/performed by several notable artists. GNG (as the name implies) is simply the general notability guideline. However, where an article falls into a specific project, if A SPECIFIC guideline exists, that should be applied first. There is nothing about information on this page that couldn't be merged to the album. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken as to how the GNG and the subnotability guidelines interaction. They are an either-or proposition. If the GNG is not met, then one can see if the topic meets a subnotability guideline like NSONGS. Even the first line of NSONGS says All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This article meets the GNG since the song is discussed in depth from these sources. I'm not saying it can't be merged once the full album is out, but even without that album, this song is notable. --MASEM (t) 06:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with either Alpocalypse or Internet Leaks. As noted in WP:NSONGS, few songs qualify for individual articles, and "Craigslist" doesn't seem to meet those criteria - no significant chart positions, no awards or honors, and no performances by multiple artists. Articles for both Alpocalypse or Internet Leaks have been around for a while and are logical destinations for a merge.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But it meets the core criteria of WP:GNG, which is sufficient for an article now. Again, I'm not against a merge to Alpocalypse once the album article has been developed fully and there's room to accommodate this. But I am against a merge now, as the song is notable on its own and the final state of Alpocalypse is yet known. --MASEM (t) 13:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I already noted, WP:NSONGS(a far more logical guideline to use than general WP guidelines, which are obviously extremely limited since they have to apply to all WP content) clearly indicates that the song doesn't merit a separate article. It's not just a matter of notability; it's a matter of logical organization of Wikipedia. If you don't think Alpocalypse is a good target for a merge, then it would make sense to merge it to Internet Leaks instead.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - That is not how subnotability guidelines work. They work either/or with the GNG. If you are trying to judge if a topic should have its own article you first see if you meet the general requirements (the GNG), and if you fail that, you may have a chance to include it by the more specific subnotability guidelines. Otherwise you are immediately omitting songs that may be from non-notable artists that never chart but that have sufficient detail from secondary sources about them. The whole point of NSONGS saying that a charting song is notable is that that's a good presumption of notability to ultimately meet the GNG itself, not to say it is the only way a song article can be made. --MASEM (t) 13:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article's first four references - [1][2][3][4] - plus this sampling of additional sources - [5][6][7][8][9] - demonstrate that the song has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Per WP:NSONGS, it is not suggested that a song must have been covered, charted or been awarded in order to be notable, only that those songs which fit that set of criteria are indeed "probably notable". The guideline goes on to state: "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." This implies a "reasonably detailed" song article is one that goes beyond a stub - a standard which in my estimation has been (or easily can be) satisfied given the information contained within the aforementioned sources. Gongshow ^Talk 03:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 10:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per meeting GNG and having enough information for a reasonably detailed article (which this already is). Merge would be the next option, but don't see an obvious merge target and adding all the sourced information from this article to a merge target would likely give undue weight to this song. Rlendog (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.