Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hummingbird Heartbeat (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hummingbird Heartbeat

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Hummingbird Heartbeat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a courtesy completion of an AfD nomination on behalf of an IP user, User:198.168.38.129 who could not create the new AfD discussion page. The IP stated their rationale for the nomination at the article's talk page[1]: "The song fails notability per WP:NSONGS as it never exactly made headlines or achieved any popularity whatsoever. Regarding release and charting, the chart positions it reached were rather low, and never really made highlights in the music industry. Also, not every single released becomes notable. The song also had no impact whatsoever on Katy Perry's career. If the singles from Katy Hudson aren't notable enough to have their own articles (which actually were significant to her career unloke this song), than this definitely isn't either. If not delete, I strongly suggest merge." Nsk92 (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the completion. 198.168.38.129 (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Upon reviewing the previous debate, the issue that the previous nominator was talking about was not so much notability as it was lack of coverage/amount of info available. If I am reading the current nominator's reasoning correctly, the low chartings indicated that it did not make much if any impact. The nominator is correct in saying that it did not chieve any popularity (popularity = notability = significance), as it is widely unheard of even in Australia and South Korea (fans not counting). I cannot name one Australian or South Korean who heard it much if ever on the air or how it was ever popular in those areas. Also, how exactly is a song that had no significance to an artist or group's career notable? Besides, the notability policies are quite specific and are not the same they were when this page was previously nominated for deletion last February. 174.252.33.128 (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As I explained at the nominators talk page, "the low chartings indicat[ing] it did not make much if any impact" is irrelevant for WP:N. Several of her songs have not "impacted" the world, including but not limited to Thinking of You (Katy Perry song), By the Grace of God (song), Dressin' Up, Peacock (song), Circle the Drain, Walking on Air (Katy Perry song) and Not Like the Movies. All of them, excepting for "Thinking of You", are listed as good articles. Notability is not given by "the impact" they did to the music world, but to how many external reliable and independent references discuss the song. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 21:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Teenage Dream (Katy Perry album) or Delete regarding discussion, most if not all of this song's coverage/discussion came from album reviews. WP:NSONGS states Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created. Requesting input from @BlueMoonset:, who has done lots of work in WP:NSONGS. As for charts, it probably would need more than just two charts to achieve signifance. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per the comments above. — Tomíca(T2ME) 00:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to no significance to her career, society, or the music industry 198.54.211.2 (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it had become an Internet sensation and/or radio hit, then perhaps it could stay. Since it never became either of those and has hardly any info not from album reviews or from Perry's own words, there's nothing that makes it notable. 174.236.2.9 (talk) 02:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:NSONGS, there is little coverage of the song in reliable sources independent of the album. Not notable. Adabow (talk) 04:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep the article but revert the classification of tis song from single back to just a song. The single release is not supported by reliable sources but only by a few radio stations. It is as if it was the radio station themselves that "released" the song. Sometimes certain new sources label the song as single not because it was released as a single but as a synonym to describe a song. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jule Firework (talk • contribs) 08:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per failing WP:NSONGS. While it is true that sometimes radio stations play songs that aren't singles (as was the case with Dark Horse (Katy Perry song) before its single release), this had no impact whatsoever on radio industry. 174.252.48.220 (talk) 08:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question (and comments) - where is the independent significant coverage in reliable sources? Here is my analysis of the article's current references:
  • (1) The mention, in its entirety: "'There's a song called Hummingbird Heartbeat. He (Brand) gives me that Hummingbird Heartbeat.'" I do not consider this significant coverage.
  • (2) The artist talks about the song in a clip on her YouTube channel. This is not "independent of the artist", as WP:NSONGS suggests.
  • (3) Two sentences within an album review. As NSONGS notes, "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability."
  • (4) One sentence within an album review (see bullet point #3). Also, I don't believe this review qualifies as a reliable source, given previous discussions on About.com (here and here, for example); regardless, the brevity of the song's mention fails to establish notability per our guidelines.
  • (4, 5) Sheet music. No coverage; does not establish notability.
  • (6) Album liner notes. "Not independent of the artist or label" (per NSONGS).
  • (7) link does not work for me. In any event, a chart listing is not coverage and NSONGS suggests that charting songs with "a standalone article should still satisfy the aforementioned criteria."
  • (8) In-depth coverage, but from a source (PopCrush) that does not appear to be reliable (previous discussion here). Even if it is acceptable, NSONGS notes that multiple such non-trivial works are needed.
  • (9, 10) Passing mentions on the song's airplay chart position. See bullet point #8.
  • (11) Two sentences on the song within a review of the album. See bullet point #3.
  • (12) The mention, in its entirety: "The title cut and 'Hummingbird Heartbeat' are also top-down bangers." No significant coverage.
  • (13) The mention, in its entirety: "The catchy, uptempo 'Hummingbird Heartbeat' is perhaps best in line with the album's five No. 1s." No significant coverage.
  • (14) One sentence. No significant coverage.
  • (15) The song is not mentioned in the article.
With this in mind, I'm frankly not seeing sufficient independent, non-trivial coverage to warrant an article on this song, nor do I find the "keep - it charted" arguments to be consistent with NSONGS. Can anyone show me what I'm missing?  Gong show 20:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the info from the article by Ben Norman (About.com). He doesn't meet WP:SPS. Adabow (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.  Gong show 21:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Passes NSONGS, has charted on Official airplay and singles chart, received enough third party notability and has been performed live numerous times on her tour. And XXNUG, don't try to reply to my post. Its gonna fall on deaf ears anyways. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 07:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question can you provide links to where it recieved significant in-depth coverage on the song and how it is notable? It would need multiple reliable links, and I haven't found any. Neither have Gongshow or Adabow. The vast majority if not all of reliable sources that talk about the song are album reviews, and WP:NSONGS indicates that songs need in-depth significant coverage from multiple reliable sources and states Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created. Being performed live on tour is moot as just about every singer and band performs many tracks on tour that never achieve notability. The "gonna fall on deaf ears" part also really wasn't necessary as it comes off as dismissive..... XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 12:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, can someone explain what part of WP:NSONGS this is supposed to meet? The "Australia Hot 100 Airplay" is not a notable or significant chart (you're looking for the ARIA chart in Australia for that purpose), and I don't see how peaking at #124 on a minor South Korean chart meets the letter or spirit of NSONGS criteria #1. It clearly does not meet #2 or #3. That takes us to the GNG, but most of the mentions of this song are trivial, a sentence or so about how it's a decent track (as picked apart very well by User:Gongshow above. It's a plausible search term, so should be redirected to Teenage Dream (Katy Perry album), but that's about it. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Frankly, it doesn't meet any of the WP:NSONGS criteria. A question I have for @Gongshow: is: do you vote delete or redirect? So far, there has been more weight for delete than anything else unless your vote is redirect. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lankiveil's summary is on point: Hummingbird Heartbeat is certainly a plausible search term, so I prefer a redirect over deletion. The song does not appear to meet WP:NSONGS for the reasons outlined above.  Gong show 16:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After looking over @Lankiveil:'s rationale again, I agree that redirect is a very good idea and change my vote to include it. I'm fine with either deleting or redirecting. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hummingbird_Heartbeat_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1140405674"