Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fluctuate (Catfish and the Bottlemen single)

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. Redirects may be added at editorial discretion Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fluctuate (Catfish and the Bottlemen single)[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)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Two separate poorly referenced articles about the same song, with no evidence provided that it would clear WP:NSONGS. The notability test for songs is being the subject of reliable source coverage, not just being verifiable as existing -- but both articles literally just state that the song exists, the end, rather than suggesting a reason why its existence would be encyclopedically noteworthy. Peaking #84 on the charts is not a high enough chart position to grant it a presumption of notability in the absence of adequate sources either — note that NSONGS explicitly states that charting suggests that a song may be notable, and does not in and of itself guarantee that a song is notable: the test is still the depth of reliable source coverage that the song does or doesn't have about it, not just technical verification of a low chart position. But one short blurb about the song in one music magazine is not enough coverage to get a song over the bar all by itself — it takes quite a bit more than just one source to make a song notable enough to have its own article separately from its parent album, but the only other source shown by either article is its Spotify stream. Note as well that in addition to these two duplicate articles, there's also a redirect to the album in place from the form "Fluctuate (Catfish and the Bottlemen song)" — meaning editors really need to be more careful that they're not reduplicating and retriplicating existing content. Ordinarily I would just redirect a poorly sourced article about a song to its album and be done with it, but with two separate articles and an already existing redirect, I don't believe we need to hold onto three separate redirects for the same song — we should just pick one title to retain as a redirect, while deleting the other two as redundant. Bearcat (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article, and keep the other redirect in place to The Balance – as the nominator says one week on the UK charts at the lowly position of number 84 and no other information about it is not enough to warrant a separate article for the song. The standard Wikipedia naming system would be for "song" instead of "single", so that should be kept as the disambiguation title, and there is no need for this article to be kept as a redirect as well, since anyone starting type the name of the song to search for it will come up with "Fluctuate (Catfish and the Bottlemen song)" anyway. Richard3120 (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. There is really no reason for this article to have not been redirected when it was found, as Fluctuate (song) already existed. That song and article also barely has any coverage, so redirect it to the parent album as well. Ss112 22:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need all three of the titles involved here to be maintained alongside each other as parallel redirects representing the same song. One redirect is enough, and the question is which one is worth retaining and which two should just be deleted as redundant. Bearcat (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Redirects are cheap. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 09:27, 09 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - duplicate article of Fluctuate (song) - not enough unique content for a Merge and no need for a Redirect - Epinoia (talk) 04:23, 9 May 2019 (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.