Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forever & Always (Taylor Swift song) (2nd nomination)

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. Sandstein 09:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forever & Always (Taylor Swift song)

[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)

I'm nominating this article for deletion as it is far from meeting the WP:NM since it has not been covered by any relevant musicians and hasn't won any significant awards. There are just two chart positions and self-promoting interviews. It takes more than that to meet the criteria. This shouldn't have been created in the first place. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 02:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Was already kept here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forever & Always. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:29, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

True but the notabilty key fatcors changed and no longer meets them as charting is not a factor for an article to be relevant. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 02:35, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the consensus at the prior AFD. Sergecross73 msg me 00:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you need to read WP:NM again, charts indicate that a song might be notable, not that is notable. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 01:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve been editing in the music content area for over a decade, I’m well aware of the guideline. (Not that it matters, as I didn’t even invoke it to begin with??) It’s a platinum selling song. More than one million copies sold in a single country. It’s preposterous to suggest a song of that sort of caliber isnt going to have a handful of sources about it in existence. That’s one of the very reasons why we create notability indicators - so people dont waste the community’s time with these sorts of nominations just because they came up with nothing in a simple Google search. Sergecross73 msg me 02:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To begin with, you evoked that as your vote is due to the last AFD nomination and the argument used was regarding chart positions. So what if its platinum? Yes, "notability indicators" having charted or the song being platinum is not one. Well, prove me wrong, show me the sources in existance that suggest it deserves being a standalone article. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 02:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Songs don’t sell a million copies and fly under the radar of music journalists. Even if you aren’t knowledgeable of the modern music industry, common sense should tell you that much. Sergecross73 msg me 04:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So if they fly under the radar of music journalists why should it have an article? It has to be notable, something this is not "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." If you believe this is notable please provide sources. Being platinum and charting are not indicators. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It’s like you got every part of that response wrong (including proper indentation.) My point is that is that charting and sales of this capacity would make it virtually impossible to fly under the radar. Music doesn’t get get that much mainstream exposure and then not get third party coverage. That’s why we have common sense indicators. Whether your BEFORE Google search was successful or not (or even happened?) I assure you that a handful of professional writers across multiple countries wrote about the song. Proposing otherwise strains the limits of credulity. Sergecross73 msg me 16:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. First of all, there is no mention in any articles besides a couple of album reviews, and well nowadays any song from a notable artist can chart. Secondly, music has been getting a lot of exposere, it's not 2004 anymore...mainly from an artist with the caliber of Taylor Swift. It did happen, you just don't want to search or you did and find no sources, because if you say its true, just provide sources for it. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notability asserted as a charted song with platinum sales, no valid rationale for deletion given. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neither estabilish notability. Please read WP:NM. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - no reason to overturn the consensus of the prior AfD, which pointed out several sources which are not in the article but still contribute to notability. Rlendog (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - WP:DELAFD no reason to overturn the consensus of the prior AfD. Most of what Miss Swift writes is notable. Wm335td (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From a fan's point of view, it must be. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure I see what they’ve done to warrant casting such an aspersion, but I suppose making bad calls hasn’t stopped you from badgering people so far, so why should it now. Please stop this. Sergecross73 msg me 02:28, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very speedy keep Deleting a Taylor Swift song? This is one of the most notable musicians on Wikipedia, and most of her songs are notable enough. Ambrosiawater (talk) 02:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even though it charted low, it seems to have enough general coverage to meet WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:08, 4 January 2020 (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.