Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flamingo (Kero Kero Bonito song)

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 redirect to Kero Kero Bonito discography#Singles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:33, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flamingo (Kero Kero Bonito song)[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)

Not convinced the sources here meet SIGCOV altogether. The DIY page is solid, and Afterglow and Impact 89 both discuss the song to some significance but not primarily. The rest only contains passing mentions and can be ignored. Didn't find any additional coverage. Article was previously redirected, and while the coverage is definitely better now than it was then, I still don't think it's quite at the level needed to exist as a standalone article. I vote to restore the redirect to the band's page. QuietHere (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and England. QuietHere (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Ryan Hemsworth#Secret Songs. The article on Hemsworth has very little text, and there is no reason that this content shouldn't be housed there where it would improve coverage on the Secret Songs project. I think that is a better place for this content then in the page on the band Kero Kero Bonito, as it would add undue weight to that article. Further, as an individual song it fails WP:NSONG.4meter4 (talk) 19:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that makes way more sense. I support this merger plan. QuietHere (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Holy crap... I just recreated the page yesterday. Give me a chance to work on it, will ya! This sort of insta-deletion urge is ridiculous.--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 14:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Next time you might wanna start as a draft then so other editors don't see it when it's not ready yet. However, despite the new sources you added I still don't think it's ready. Of the 14 additional sources added since yesterday, the only one I could guarantee reliability from is The Line of Best Fit. Per its about page, Spincoaster appears to be mainly focused on commercial work rather than being a music publication which would make that best of 2014 list either basically a blog post or maybe even paid for. It's not entirely clear, but I just wouldn't trust it. Otherwise nothing else in there is any good for GNG. QuietHere (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, don't demolish the house while it's still being built! I don't know if I've ever used drafts, and there's no reason that I need to start now. Regarding Spincoaster, that's a fair point, although I'd argue the interview with the band is reliable. I'll remove the critical reception bit, though. But aside from that, we have non-trivial discussions of the song in DIY, Line of Best Fit, Afterglow, CE Noticias Financieras, and several publications that interviewed the band. It's popularity on TikTok is also discussed in a non-trivial way across several publications.--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 20:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I already responded to "don't demolish the house" just below this and I stand by that.

The point of a draft is to start on an article and develop it over time. They're very helpful to have around and I'd recommend it, even if it's something as small as just not having the time to build out the whole article in one sitting. I use 'em all the time for upcoming releases that I suspect will attain notability around their release time but aren't there when they've only just been announced. There's plenty of good reasons to start an article as a draft, including avoiding AfDs like this.

Afterglow is a student-run paper per their about page, see WP:STUDENTMEDIA

I think the appropriate policy is WP:RSSM, which notes, "They can sometimes be considered reliable on other topics". Given that the source has an editorial staff, I'd say it's a solid work.--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 13:30, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. The articles on the TikTok trend only constitute brief mentions of the song and trend, falling short of SIGCOV. I think the DIY and LoBF announcement articles are only just above that line, while the DIY "trading MP3s" article is definitely too brief.

2. Interviews are always difficult as is discussed in WP:INTERVIEW, but in this case I can imagine a lot of editors would discount these as too close to primary. QuietHere (talk) 22:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion in CE Noticias Financieras is pretty decent.--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 13:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with sources being primary in and of themselves.--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 13:30, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The same page says "secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability". That's what's wrong with them being primary. QuietHere (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But I'm not claiming notability on the basis of only the primary sources. I'm simply including them to show that "attention [is] being given to the subject"--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 21:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And just to be clear, I wouldn't have launched this AfD if I had found additional coverage to add; in that case I would've just added {{Refideas}} to the talk page. It's not a matter of an incomplete page that just needs more time in the oven. QuietHere (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that this argument was first made when the article stood at 4k bytes, and in a day, I managed to find 10k bytes of additional material to add to the page, largely from simple Google searches.--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 13:30, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But without enough additional reliable sources. As I said, I made my BEFORE search, saw the stuff you've added, dismissed it as unreliable and moved on. You could've added 50k bytes but it'd still be non-notable information. QuietHere (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Dismiss[ing] [content] as unreliable" is one reason why I find this whole thing frustrating. What here is "unreliable"? The primary sources which are just sourcing basic facts? 'Cuz other than that, everything I see is from perfectly fine sources.--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 21:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do your article offline using Word or another word processing thing. Then when it's ready for wiki, copy and paste it here. That's what I do. Avoids having this happen. Oaktree b (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or, again, start it as a draft and request a review when you think it's ready for publishing. QuietHere (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kero Kero Bonito discography#Singles. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed target per below. SBKSPP (talk) 06:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:03, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kero Kero Bonito discography#Singles instead, not Hemsworth's Secret Songs. A suitable redirect to the KKB discography, is needed so that it should be redirected to discography, not the label. –-2600:1700:9BF3:220:E5DF:BBC6:E859:6917 (talk) 05:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But what would make that a more informative redirect than the Secret Songs section? Secret Songs has room to add information about the song that wouldn't fit on a discography page, and redirects owe users the best possible information rather than any specific target page. The discog page doesn't even link back to Secret Songs so users will be left assuming all there is to know about the song is that it was a non-album single released in 2014. QuietHere (talk) 06:00, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, if the non-album single is not notable under WP:NSONGS, a redirect to an specific artist's discography is needed, not every artists have discography pages. A redirect to Secret Songs section, could pose an WP:XY issue, pinging Onel5969, the one who BLARred the song's article wayback two years ago, to speak an opinion about it. 2600:1700:9BF3:220:E5DF:BBC6:E859:6917 (talk) 11:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere in NSONGS that I can see does it require a redirect specifically to the artist's discography page/section. I don't think XY is actually an issue because Secret Songs already links back directly to the band. That discography section is only two clicks away and plenty findable from there, and as I said, it's better equipped to be more informative about the song than the discography section. QuietHere (talk) 15:41, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kero Kero Bonito discography#Singles, which is a more specific target than the original redirect. Fails NSONG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are two different redirects proposed here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:13, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edited the discography page to add a link to Secret Songs so it should be fine to redirect to the former now. Since that's the apparent consensus here, it at least makes sense to leave a link to prose on the song so the connection isn't entirely lost. QuietHere (talk) 20:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, this is me throwing support behind Kero Kero Bonito discography#Singles as a redirect target. I'd rather this not end as no consensus, please and thank you. QuietHere (talk) 03:55, 24 November 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.