Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VKTM

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 delete. While WP:CANVASS could be a concern here, the pinged editors presented a variety of opinions and so I do not think that the pings compromised the integrity of the discussion. There is consensus that this article, despite its GA status, lacks the kind of sourcing needed to establish notability for a song. While redirection would frequently be an alternative to deletion for songs, and indeed there is some level of consensus here for a redirect, there is no clear redirect target and so the redirect itself would not be policy compliant. We are thus left with deletion. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

VKTM

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

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

I'd like to start by saying this should not have been promoted to GA status. Looking at the article, 1 of the 9 sources contains 5 retail links to iTunes, another two of the sources are YouTube videos from the record label/artist and therefore not independent. Per Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria#The_six_good_article_criteria it fails criteria 2 (verifiable) and 2 (broad in coverage). Per WP:SONGS there is a lot of information that isn't available. GA aside, when you exclude the YouTube and iTunes sources, it hasn't received extensive coverage and is really a WP:STUB. There are some guidelines on stubs at WP:NSONG which say articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. This falls into that category too. Its a delete with mention on each of the artists' pages for me. ≫ (Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 21:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ≫ (Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 21:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. ≫ (Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 21:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lil-unique1: This kinda came out of nowhere, whoop. The sources used may be just a few—because yeah, it didn't receive much media coverage—but they are definitely reliable. Also, the song is a single by two (very) notable artists (Inna is a lead artist on this), and the quality is definitely GA-worthy. I'll ping some other users @Aoba47: @MarioSoulTruthFan: @Paparazzzi: Cartoon network freak (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if it seems random, however, another user kept citing this is a GA example and actually when you consider other short articles that are up for deletion this is very similar. Notability is not inherited just because a notable artist releases something. Also WP:NSONG is very clear that if something is not going to grow beyond a stub is shouldn't exist as an independent article. That's my interpretation of the guidelines. Of course, I'll respect community consensus on this. ≫ (Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 08:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lil-unique1: Oppose: Just to summarize my points: I think this should be kept since it's a full-fledged single released by notable artists that received little, but reliable coverage. Also, the article is well-written and sourced. I'm open to comments. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lil-Unique is right though, just because the artists are notable does not mean the song is automatically notable. Even if it were by the Beatles or Elvis Presley, it wouldn't automatically qualify for its own article unless it could be shown to meet the criteria of WP:NSONG on its own terms. Richard3120 (talk) 14:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don’t see any evidence of this meeting the explicit WP:NSONG criteria. I also don’t see significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG (CelebMix looks like the only independent source about this and I’m not sure it’s reliable, while Dance-Charts styles itself as a portal for "DJ promotion"). There’s also no clear redirect target since it isn’t part of an album and there are three different artists. — MarkH₂₁^talk 14:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I have been pinged to this conversation, and I actually agree with the nominator's rationale. A majority of the references are for primary sources (i.e. the iTunes Store and YouTube). The only third-party sources are Celebmix and Dance-Charts, and I do not think that these two sources only meet the requirement that a subject has received significant coverage from third-party, reliable sources per the general notability guidelines. I also agree with the above discussion that notability is not inherited; just because Inna is a notable artist, that does not mean every single she releases gets an article on that basis alone. I generally prefer a redirect (and this is a viable search term), but since there is not a clear target in this case, I am going with a delete. Aoba47 (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article is well-written, with reliable sources (maybe with the exception of Dance-Charts). The song is recent, probably is going to be featured on a future EP/album so more information may come. Deleting it seems a drastic option to me. Paparazzzi (talk) 18:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Temporarily redirect to Alexandru Cotoi - If the Cotoi article is accurate, his last three singles charted in Romania's top 20. So it's not that far-fetched that this too, might do it in the future. I do think it is a "good" article, in the sense that it isn't currently possible to write a better one. However, I'm not seeing any indication of notability. If the song becomes notable in the future, the GA status can be retained while restoring the article.--N Ø 06:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MaranoFan, if an article is deleted or redirected, its GA status is rescinded, and would need to go through GAN again even if later restored. Also, Lil-unique1, notability is not part of the GA criteria, so an article can meet those criteria without necessarily meeting notability criteria. GAs have been deleted before due to notability issues, and probably will again in the future. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If something doesn't meet notability criteria, then I'd say that alone is enough to automatically fail it at GAN. I thought it was quite obvious that we shouldn't promote pages to GA when they don't even warrant their own articles. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset Although notability isn't mentioned specifically in the GA criteria, broad coverage is. Broad coverage is a component of notability IMO. To be fair, this situation has proven that there is too much variation in GA criteria for songs / its too open to interpretation - there's a few similar articles that are also GAs which are up for deletion too and the conclusion is the same that they should be deleted/redirected. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 08:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: I have been pinged to this conversation I do have to agree with the nominator and Aoba47, this doesn't meet the criteria right now. Maybe in nearby future, but not as it stands. The only source it meets the guidelines is the Celebmix I have mixed feelings towards it. Furthermore just because it charted doesn't mean it is reliable. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkH21, Lil-unique1, and Richard3120: You guys should consider looking at other GAs that are part of Inna discography and Alexandra Stan discography and open AfDs. I feel like we should get rid of GAs that don't meet criteria. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete regardless of whether WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, this fails WP:NSONGS because there's no significant coverage for the track in sources not closely affiliated with artists. CelebMix isn't trustworthy, and I'm not sure whether one can call Dance-Charts reliable, but that either way isn't enough on its own to warrant an article. It shouldn't have been promoted to GA as a result, and contrary to what Cartoon network freak seems to believe, being a single doesn't inherently mean a song should have its own page. Neither does being recorded by notable artists. I agree with MarkH21 that redirecting isn't feasible when it's by three different artists and not part of an album. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lil-unique1, Aoba47, MarioSoulTruthFan, Paparazzzi, Richard3120, MarkH21, MaranoFan, and SNUGGUMS: I just wanted to give you an update: "VKTM" debuted at number #92 on this week's Airplay 100 chart. Does this indicate some notabiliy? Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't, especially when this only gives a brief mention of the track. Charts (or lack thereof) don't automatically indicate whether something warrants a page either. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:NSONG, charting is not a strong indication of notability, and it can only show that a song may be notable. The focus should be kept on whether or not it has received significant coverage from third-party, reliable sources and that is not the case here. So my answer is no. Aoba47 (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a no from me. Charting does suggest one might get more coverage in the future but at present it doesn't change the fact that there hasn't been extensive coverage. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 16:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good start, maybe it will get more coverage or promotion in the future. In my opinion it still doesn't have enough coverage to be a standalone article currently. However, I'm a bit puzzled by the delete votes; being confused about which artist the title should redirect to is no reason to not have a redirect at all? It's very much a plausible search term. If "365" wasn't notable, would we not have any redirect for it due to confusion if it should redirect to Zedd's or Katy's pages?--N Ø 17:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This single has three people that are named as the primary artists so a clear redirect target does not exist. There would not be a clear reason why the redirect should go to one of them over either of the other two. That is the reason why I voted delete. I would do the same for "365" since Perry and Zedd are both primary artists on the song so a clear redirect target would not exist in that scenario either. Aoba47 (talk) 18:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning is the same as what Aoba47 just gave. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I recall passing this as a GA because it is a well-written article about the single, which charted and had an accompanying music video --Kyle Peake (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All of those points are entirely moot when no credible third-party references cover the song in much detail. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Significant coverage is the most important aspect of proving notability, and that has not been proven for this. Aoba47 (talk) 23:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Itunes and YouTube sources are barely helpful for establishing WP:N. Accesscrawl (talk) 05:30, 17 July 2020 (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.