Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Never Know

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. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 22:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Never Know

[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 strongly feel this Bad Omens song article doesn't meet notability guidelines WP:NSONG for inclusion, and should probably just be merged to band page, as we don't even have an article for the containing album (per "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." NSONG recommendation). The single chart this appeared on was not a Top 100 or such, but rather a very region- and genre-specific Mainstream Rock chart - such mediocre charting does not alone demonstrate notability. By comparison, the Bad Omens song 'Limits' on the same album charted higher and stayed on longer, and even an article for that song would not be warranted. There is almost no mainstream reliable source coverage of this song for any other merits, and it has virtually no chance of becoming more than the existing stub. Added: The 6 references currently consist of 4 refs about the song that are minimal "press release" style release information (no reviews), 1 interview article about the album as a whole (not a review and not a mainstream music news site), and of course the chart performance link. -- Netoholic @ 22:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Netoholic @ 22:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as creator. The song passes WP:NSONGS by it's charting on a major chart, (Top 30 of a valid WP:GOODCHART)and kept receiving coverage. Much of the nomination is irrelevant otherwise - the fact that the same band had another single that charted better but doesn't have its own article is a complete WP:OSE failure. Sergecross73 msg me 22:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this is a comment from the article's creator. And I'll reiterate that chart performance alone is not sufficient (WP:NSONG: "this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable"). The song's chart performance can (and is) already mentioned on the Bad Omen page, making this entire stub moot. -- Netoholic @ 22:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Amended. Apologies, I forgot that step. I spend a lot of time at AFD but its pretty rare to be discussing my own article creations here. Sergecross73 msg me 23:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sergecross73. Incidentally, since the first point of WP:NSONG appears to contradict itself, I am going to start a discussion on that talk page about that. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 12:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 12:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Incidentally, Netoholic, if you think the song isn't notable, why not avoid an AfD and just redirect the article to the album? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 12:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's a lot wrong with his nomination, but to his credit, AFD wasn't the wrong venue this time (unlike when he crashed the move discussion.) If he had boldly redirected, I just would have boldly reverted him, and he probably realized that and just cut to the chase. Sergecross73 msg me 12:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NSONG per Sergecross' argument. SBKSPP (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2022 (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.