Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heaven (Fits of Gloom 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 Fits of Gloom. JohnCD (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven (Fits of Gloom song)

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

Only sources are a discog listing, which is only proves it exists, and a confirmation of its chart position. To say a song is notable just because it charted is a misinterpretation of WP:NSONGS. Its first sentence states, "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." One criteria that may make a song notable is that it ranks on a significant chart, but there is no other coverage of that fact and no other reliable sources about the song itself. If the only thing that can be shown is that the song charted, the article fails WP:NSONGS. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that a redirect is probably what is in order here per the requirements of WP:NSONGS: "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate 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." However, my attempt to do so was reverted but I have no objection to deletion since relevant info is in the Fits of Gloom article. But if this can be expanded to merit a standalone article, I'm all for that too. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fits of Gloom per nom's sound analysis. Side note, we have already a Heaven (Fits Of Gloom song) (with just a different capitalization of the word "of") which redirects there. Cavarrone 17:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was the result of an over-zealous bot fixing a double redirect after movement of this song from Heaven (Fits Of Gloom song) by Richhoncho - it shouldn't redirect there.--Laun chba ller 19:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as article creator and per "have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label" - I consider the Official Chart Company page non-trivial and Discogs enough information to take it over the edge of redirection. There is sourced information here not on the artist's page.--Laun chba ller 19:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage on the OCC page consists of the title and one line of text. Discogs is a primary source and not evidence of notability. Peter James (talk) 08:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Only because my name has been mentioned! I moved it because it was recent and deserved time to mature as an article (in my opinion), but I can fully appreciate the nominator's rationale for bringing here. At present it is NOT a song article, it is a discography entry, and as such it will always fail WP:NSONGS. NSONGS says a song may become notable if has charted, not that charting is notable! That means a song article should have information about the song above and beyond information relating to the format (single!) i.e. some information about the song, the music, the lyrics, critical reception. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Richhoncho: just to clarify, the stuff that's on the song page but not the artist page isn't enough to take it over the edge?--Laun chba ller 17:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A look at WP:SONGS will help you. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Not notable. It got to #47 in the UK. That's a rather generous definition of "charted", since mainstream media in the UK only focuses on the Top 40 at most. There's no other claim for notability: discogs.org is user-generated content[1] and the other sources are exceptionally short. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Official Chart Company gives the UK top 100 every week if you'd like to take a look.--Laun chba ller 11:57, 6 August 2013 (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.