Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zombieboy

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. This isn’t the strongest consensus, but the generally held opinion is that NSONG is met, and GNG has plausibly been shown to be met as well. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:51, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zombieboy

[edit]

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

Zombieboy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSONG, which specifies that coverage of a song in the context of album reviews is insufficient to demonstrate notability. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:04, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:04, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging @RangersRus, who accepted this at AFC. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:07, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The song made it to the top charts on UK billboard and on Billboard Hot 100 chart. So it meets the criteria Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. and also has coverage by The Guardian and by Billboard, and Capitalfm, UK's No.1 Hit Music Station. RangersRus (talk) 02:07, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Charting is not a criterion for notability. That's listed under the following: Any of the following factors suggest that a song or single may be notable enough that a search for coverage in reliable independent sources will be successful. The Guardian source is an album review, which the guideline explicitly states does not contribute to notability for a song. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:20, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Capitalfm and Billboard have coverage focusing on the song alone. RangersRus (talk) 02:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not enough coverage to establish notability. The Billboard is totally trivial, just "Lady Gaga posts a TikTok" and is not about the song. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:32, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    KEEP: That's not what WP:NSONGS defines as "trivial". Again, please read the rules instead of coming up with your own.
    "Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable.
    If you find the content of the article trivial, that's your own personal problem. — Amenvodka (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 22:38, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That it excludes unreliable sources does not mean it includes everything not published by an unreliable source. All encyclopedic subjects require WP:SIGCOV. "Lady Gaga posted a TikTok set to this song" does not make this song notable. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mayhem (Lady Gaga album) this doesn't meet WP:NSONGS when the only credible sources outside of album reviews or artist commentary just give brief mentions that are less than a cumulative paragraph. Definitely not sufficient for a separate article, so the draft shouldn't have been accepted at AFC. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:42, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see my comment above. RangersRus (talk) 02:09, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • For reference:
    Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject[1] of multiple,[2] non-trivial[3] published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries or reviews. This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work.[4] 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.
    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.
    A standalone article about a song should satisfy the above criteria. Any of the following factors suggest that a song or single may be notable enough that a search for coverage in reliable independent sources will be successful.
    1. Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. (Note again that this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable.)
    2. Has won one or more significant awards or honors, such as a Grammy, Latin Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.
    3. Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups.
     ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:25, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the song/single, its musician/band or of its publication, price listings and other non-substantive detail treatment.
  2. ^ The number of reliable sources necessary to establish notability is different for songs from different eras. Reliable sources available (especially online) increases as one approaches the present day.
  3. ^ "Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable. Be careful to check that the musician, record label, agent, vendor. etc. of a particular song/single are in no way affiliated with any third party source.
  4. ^ Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the song/single. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its artist, record label, vendor or agent) have actually considered the song/single notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.
  • You appear to believe "may be notable" is synonymous with "probably notable". That is a common mistake among Wikipedians and is why the "not that it is notable" part gets included (even when often overlooked). Either way, whenever there is little to no coverage from sources that aren't album reviews or artist commentary, it becomes moot whether a song enters any charts. We thus shouldn't assume that charting can compensate for minimal depth in sources that discuss the song at all. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:59, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Probably TOOSOON for the song. The Billboard article about the dance trend is probably the best source. Rest are rather trivial coverage. The song was only released this month, probably needs time before the music-consuming public decides if it's the "killer hit of the summer" or some such thing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That chart clause is in the context of things about a song that are positive indicators that a search for coverage would make a case for notability. The coverage is still what establishes notability. Charting does not presume notability. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:13, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that if the song gets popular, people will write about it. That's usually what I've had to wait for when writing articles in the past. The song is big, but not big enough as no one's written about it yet. Oaktree b (talk) 00:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My reply was somehow misplaced—this was a reply to this comment, not yours. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Redirect to the album’s page ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:28, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While the message Another Believer left on CHr0m4tiko0's talk page was given neutral phrasing instead of asking for a specific stance, and thus technically wouldn't count as canvassing, I personally wouldn't be surprised if the intent was to obtain another "keep" vote here. I definitely got suspicious when seeing a quick follow-up complaining about AFD nominations. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:31, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more interested in getting editors to collaborate and help improve the article. I am not particularly worried about the outcome of this discussion or what happens to any of the Lady Gaga song articles. I think the topics are notable, but if the articles get moved back into the draft space, who cares. I am not going to lose any sleep over this. I am going to move on to other areas of Wikipedia -- working on Gaga songs hasn't really been enjoyable. Happy editing, ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:38, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've supported all the song articles from Mayhem because there's clearly a lot of sourced content—chart performance, critical reviews, and more—that can be properly developed in each case. As one of the main contributors to the album article, I’ve often tried to add more material, though some of it gets trimmed for relevance or length. That’s why I support this and the other song pages: to ensure that information has a place if and when it's appropriate to include it. Plus, the era is just getting started—there’s still a lot to come that will further expand these articles. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 02:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not every song from the album warrants a page, also let's not perpetuate the misconception that charts entitle them to articles, and critical reviews only count towards notability when they're not just part of general album reviews. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:44, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point—I'm not saying charts or reviews alone are enough. Just contributing to what's already there, not creating these pages from scratch. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 03:11, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet. We either need better sources or perhaps more support for a Redirect which is typically the outcome in AFDs about songs which have borderline notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:15, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition to meeting the non-binding indicia in WP:NSONG that the song "Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts", there are at least three articles in RS that meet WP:NSONG. The statements above that the only credible sources outside of album reviews or artist commentary "just give brief mentions" are simply false. As mentioned above, Billboard on March 18 and People.com on March 19 did a piece on how the song specifically is inspiring trends on Tiktok, and CapitalFM has a piece analyzing the meaning of the lyrics. Each of the three articles are clearly about "Zombieboy" specifically and the song's impacts on popular culture. Some editors allege that coverage about Tiktok trends and analyses of song lyrics do not meet the "non-trivial" requirement under WP:NSONG. Fortunately, NSONG provides a precise definition of what "non-trivial" means: "Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable. Be careful to check that the musician, record label, agent, vendor. etc. of a particular song/single are in no way affiliated with any third party source" So, let's apply NSONG as it is written: neither of the three articles are a "personal website", "blog", "bulletin board", "usenet post", "wiki", or "other media which is not itself reliable". If users wish to import "coverage of song-related social media trends" or "lyric analyses" as a category of "trivial coverage", they should start an RFC and propose that those be added into WP:NSONG instead of litigating it at random through AfD nominations of individual pop songs. IMHO, the guidelines as written result in a clear keep outcome here. FlipandFlopped ツ 16:00, 28 March 2025 (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/Zombieboy&oldid=1283780825"