Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bittersweet Bundle of Misery

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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:08, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bittersweet Bundle of Misery[edit]

[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)

It seems to fail WP:MUSIC. A Google search confirms the chart position mentioned, but other than that, it seemingly lacks significant coverage. Losipov (talk) 04:53, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Losipov (talk) 04:53, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NSONG and peaking at 22 on the UK national chart. Note that searching proquest this song is noted in quite literally dozens of independent RS. There is enough factual / critical coverage out there to build up a start class article or better over time. Keeping in mind we don't need coverage to the level of GNG when meeting an SNG, we have, for example [1] His voice on tracks like Bittersweet Bundle Of Misery has a slightly out of tune, but intentional, quality about it., [2] 'No Good Time' and 'Bittersweet Bundle of Misery' also contradict the received opinion that Damon was the tunesmith in Blur and Graham was the obscurantist., or [3]The recent single Bittersweet Bundle of Misery resembles The Archies' Sugar Sugar as much as Blur's Coffee and TV, So NSONG holds up well in this case. —siro χ o 06:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Siroxo I don't quite follow your argument here. NSONG makes clear that the chart criterion does not on its own establish notability. The sources you refer to, as well as everything else I could find, through proquest and elsewhere, is passing mentions. The song is frequently mentioned as an example or illustration of the musician's abilities, but I haven't found any analysis of the song itself. I don't think we should Keep based on the shaky grounds of NSONG, and I'm not seeing any sources that meet WP:GNG. We also aren't looking at other SNG criteria, so I do think we need GNG-level coverage. Actualcpscm (talk) 09:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While this one may meet GNG, as I didn't do an exhaustive search, I don't think NSONG actually requires GNG-level, or the SNG wouldn't need to exist at all. Note that this subject does not fall afoul of the exclusionary criteria If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, as I saw coverage unrelated to the album, or articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. I am confident we can write a start-class or longer article on this song. Since it doesn't meet either of the exclusionary criteria, and meets other guidelines, I am satisfied the SNG is met. —siro χ o 10:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But in these sources, the song is never the subject of the article/review/etc: The coverage required by NSONG is 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. Even in the best examples, the song is mentioned and perhaps used as an example of a quality of the singer's voice, but that's it. This is not substantive detail treatment, even by the lower standards of NSONG. Actualcpscm (talk) 10:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: NSONG makes clear that chart listing is not enough on its own to establish notability, and none of the other sources provide any analysis of the song. We have plenty of mentions, but no analysis of the song out of which to establish notability and build an article. Actualcpscm (talk) 09:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Actualcpscm (talk) 10:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a disagreement over how WP:NSONG is to be interpreted with regard to this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we still need to hear from additional editors on varying interpretations of the relevance to WP:NSONG in the context of this article subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this itnis a great song. Do not be a spoilsport :( 84.67.12.174 (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2023 (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.