Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blank Space (2015 Brit Awards performance)

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blank Space (2015 Brit Awards performance)[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)

A newly created article (four days ago) about a live performance of a song. This can be considered WP:CFORK of 2015 Brit Awards. Sources used are trivial and even unreliable (Hollywood Life; Junkee; Teen Vogue to name a few). Since redirect would not help much as this is not a plausible search term, and this article is now an orphaned article, I suggest the article be deleted. HĐ (talk) 07:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 07:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HĐ: Other than deletion, what would you prefer then? Would it be better to put this information in the main article for "Blank Space" or the 2015 Brit Awards or the List of Taylor Swift live performances? Don't tell me that something like that isn't inherently workable as an alternative. And you can't just cherry-pick from a three sources that you consider to be trivial and unreliable and determine that makes the presence of this article unjustifiable. Keep in mind that that's only "a few" out of over nearly 60. And this isn't merely about the performance itself, but the background (such as the names of the backup dancers and what not) and critical reception. BornonJune8 (talk) 07:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HĐ: Are The Daily Telegraph (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/music-news/11433807/Taylor-Swift-wins-Elles-Woman-of-the-Year.html), ABC News (http://abcnewsradioonline.com/music-news/2015/2/25/sam-smith-taylor-swift-ed-sheeran-win-big-at-brit-awards-mad.html), Toronto Sun (https://torontosun.com/2015/02/25/ed-sheeran-sam-smith-rule-2015-brit-awards/wcm/72723d84-fbee-4406-b639-6ec48fadb68f), Marie Claire (https://www.marieclaire.co.uk/entertainment/music/brit-awards-2015-8-must-talk-about-moments-109586), BBC Newsbeat (http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/30489591), The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/dec/15/names-announced-brit-awards-taylor-swift), BBC (https://www.bbc.com/news/live/entertainment-arts-31430677), Billboard (https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/6480635/brit-awards-2015-recap), Entertainment Tonight (https://www.etonline.com/awards/160326_taylor_swift_brit_awards_2015_recap), or The Hollywood Reporter (https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/taylor-swift-brit-awards-performance-777741), not good enough of sources then? Many of these sources aren't even in the main article for the 2015 Brit Awards nor the "Blank Space" article in itself, when discussing live performances. Even so, how exactly are Hollywood Life, Junkee, and Teen Vogue not reliable enough? They have their own Wikipedia articles, they they're allowed to be used as sources unlike say, The Daily Mail. BornonJune8 (talk) 07:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HĐ: Should no individual award show or major concert have a separate article, for an individual performance then? Let's say for example, the famous Queen performance at Live Aid in 1985. Would you have an issue with there being a separate Wikipedia article for that, or should it only be summarized in the Live Aid section? Or Michael Jackson's performance at the Motown 25 television special in 1983, where he debuted the Moonwalk. What about the Beatles' first appearance on The Ed Sullivan Show. Of course, Taylor Swift performance "Blank Space" at the 2015 Brit Awards, doesn't equal those events that I just mentioned. But my point is still, why can't there be separate coverage of a particular music performance if the sources and information (that isn't otherwise there) is available. BornonJune8 (talk) 8:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@BornonJune8: The sources you listed (Daily Telegraph, Billboard) discuss the Brit Awards and not this performance specifically, thus I don't see that satisfying WP:GNG which requires independent and non-trivial coverage. HollywoodLife and Teen Vogue are okay-ish, but not enough reliability for good quality sources. Don't bring WP:OTHERSTUFF into this discussion; alas, I am not seeing an independent article on Queen's Live Aid performance. I doubt if this specific performance is equally iconic as Queen's Live Aid, though. HĐ (talk) 11:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of sources used focus on the Brit Awards and not this performance specifically. Those do, however, fall into the category of gossip-y online fanzines/blogs (HollywoodLife, Facebook, "Your Next Shoes", "Star Style", Daily Express etc.) Keep in mind Wikipedia is not a directory for each and every indiscriminate collection of sources. Critical reviews are mostly derived from recap of the Brit Awards, making it WP:CFORK. The background section is straight-up news report, which Wikipedia is not. This whole article, subtracting the problematic issues that I raised, can be reasonably detailed at List of Taylor Swift live performances / Blank Space / 2015 Brit Awards (which already is). HĐ (talk) 11:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A four minute performance is certainly not notable for its own wiki article. It’s a WP:CFORK. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 12:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I feel this should be Redirected to somewhere, but I can’t really decide where it should. Foxnpichu (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Foxnpichu: As HĐ said, redirecting wouldn’t be a good idea as this is not a plausible search term. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 20:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - How not though? Foxnpichu (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - As of now this article is orphaned, so I don't think there is a possibility that readers would search this specific article in its exact terms. HĐ (talk) 01:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fair enough. Foxnpichu (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Overdetail about a WP:ROUTINE awards show performance. Nate • (chatter) 23:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HĐ I already said, would it be preferable then to lift the information and place it in List of Taylor Swift live performances / Blank Space / 2015 Brit Awards? And now, as of right now, it isn't extensively detailed there outside basic level information. BornonJune8 (talk) 12:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BornonJune8: You can do so at 2015 Brit Awards (aside from this performance, sources can also be used to improve details on other performances of other artists as well). Having a standalone article, however, is not a good alternative. HĐ (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Although, that could be seen as WP:UNDUE and WP:FANCRUFT. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 01:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If this particular performance should be expanded upon, then performances of other artists should be as well, but to a certain extent that does not violate WP:UNDUE, and sources used should comply with reliability guidelines. HĐ (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nirvana's performance at the 1992 MTV Awards was a legitimate news story, as was Prince on the Grammys in 1984 and Madonna's performance of "Like a Virgin on the VMAS the same year. Elton John and Eminem at the Grammys, Adele at the BRITS in 2011, and Ricky Martin "Livin' La Vida Loca" in 1999 on the Grammys? There are no standalone articles on any of these performances, all of which would easily meet GNG. Taylor Swift's performance of "Blank Spaces" on the American Music Awards is included on this Billboard list of the "100 Greatest Awards Show Appearances" but it's at #97 and it's not from the BRITS. Regardless of its quality (I have no opinion) it was a routine promotional appearance meant to heat up her record sales.JSFarman (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would have to vote on having this draft to be deleted. As HĐ said, it does not include reliable sources and and a four-minute performance doesn't cut out to be in Wikipedia. Another issue that I saw that I think that needs to be pointed out is that there are list of people who commented on Taylor Swift's dress. One, I don't think it's necessary to have it, and two, it's not important. The article itself also can be seen as WP:UNDUE and WP:FANCRUFT, as D🐶ggy54321 stated above. I think it should be deleted. Jack Reynolds (talk to me!) (email me!!) 17:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and my earlier comment. It may meet GNG but it's a bit crufty as well as what Wikipedia is not. JSFarman (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not view that the sources available indicate any notability/cultural legacy of this performance to warrant its own article. My issue with HollywoodLife and Teen Vogue is not their reliability (they might not be perfect but this is not an FAC we're talking about here.. they're not some ramshackle blogs). I don't think just because sourcing is less-than-perfect articles should be deleted (you're supposed to improve sourcing where possible). The thing is they just write a few lines and link to the video to get clicks... mostly routine coverage of an awards show performance. For example, if there were multiple articles about the production of the performance–or actual full-length reviews—then this would be a different situation, but there just isn't that information available (signaling that perhaps this performance does not warrant an article of its own). Relevant information could be used to expand an article elsewhere (as per the above: the live performances list, the awards show article, the Blank Space article, etc.) Heartfox (talk) 06:03, 29 January 2021 (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.