Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unreleased Britney Spears songs (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Consensus is to keep, regardless of the nominator's behaviour throughout this discussion (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of unreleased Britney Spears songs

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of unreleased Britney Spears songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was previously nominated for deletion which resulted in no consensus as it had FL status at the time. The list was recently removed from FL status as consensus found that various of these "sources" were dead links (failed WP:V) and WP:SYNTH violations through the suggestion that the songs were actually recorded. Without venturing into the history of the article any further, this list is a violation of WP:NOT#INFO and the items in the article are WP:ROUTINE coverage of songs that were leaked over time, with no substantial and lasting notability that would warrant an article for this kind of topic to exist. Till 13:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Much of the information is sourced to a variety of reliable sources. (I'm less keen on the inclusion of songs that are only sourced to publishers, because that doesn't really show anything, and doesn't count as a reliable source, but an article doesn't get deleted just because a portion is problematic.) The info could exist happily on the main page of an artist with a shorter career. Entries here do not need to be notable recordings, they only need to be a part of Spears's career which is verifiable. Information about what songs she was given or wasn't given, songs she turned down, songs she recorded that weren't deemed releasable, and who subsequently recorded them, offers useful information for understanding the progress of her career and her changing musical style. If writers, editors, publishers, and readers all believe Spears's career is important, then we can cover it - it's not WP's business to tell people "this is trivia, read something else". --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • But it is Wikipedia's business to enforce policy, regardless of whether this article is WP:USEFUL for understanding her career. This article consists of various dead links that fail WP:V, copyright violations that violate WP:CV and WP:ROUTINE coverage of songs that leaked over time, nothing of substantial signifiance. Wikipedia does not and should not document each unreleased song of an artist that was leaked or in this case listed on a songwriting website. Till 02:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per precedent and failure of references to establish that this is actually a list of unreleased Britney Spears songs and fails both WP:LINKVIO and WP:SYNTH.
Links to AfD discussions :-
List of unreleased Lana Del Rey songs (2nd nomination)
List of unreleased songs by Nicole Scherzinger
List of unreleased Brandy Norwood songs
List of unreleased Rihanna songs
List of unreleased Spice Girls songs
List of unreleased Lady Gaga songs
List of unreleased Usher songs
List of unreleased Coldplay songs
List of unreleased Kylie Minogue songs
List of Mariah Carey b-sides, bonus tracks, and unreleased songs (2nd nomination)
List of Ace of Base unreleased songs
List of Christina Aguilera B-sides and unreleased songs (2nd nomination)
Unreleased Van Halen projects
List of unreleased Cher songs
List of unreleased Sissel Kyrkjebø songs
Bon Jovi outtakes
There's probably more but how much precedent do I need to find?
Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of unreleased Britney Spears songs/archive1 where I wrote and now repeat :It's impossible to prove a negative, but for an example of an incorrect listing, if you search "Bob Dylan" under performer at ASCAP, there is an entry for Endless Highway, because it was performed by The Band on the joint album Before the Flood. As far as I am aware there is no Dylan performance, recorded or live.
With regard to registering a song, you will will see what is required at ASCAP - you will note that no proof of information is required.
I did start running through the references and here are my notes to where I got to:
1. US Copyright office. Does not confer the title “unreleased song” on any piece of work. Only that there is material that Spears or her advisers thinks might have a copyright. (it might be a poem or a lyric, therefore not an “unreleased song.”
2. Ditto. BMI/ASCAP. Only confirms that there is a song which the Britney Spears people think that performance royalties might be due. Again does not confer the concept of “unreleased recording” but of "performance." It should be noted that these two organizations collect songwriter royalties for the performance of the song - NOT the recording of the song (important distinction).
3. MTV Buzzworthy. MTV Networks. This site has links through to YouTube which has the 3 unreleased songs available. If the song has not been released by Spears/Record company then it is not legal, it is WP:LINKVIO.
4. The Sun. Asks the question, “Is Britney singing?” This does not make this an “unreleased recording.” It makes it a “possible” unreleased recording. Again there a soundfile which, if uploaded without permission (irrespective of who copyright owner is) is LINKVIO.
5. MuuMuse.com has inbedded links to SoundCloud - although the file is no longer available. There is also 10 lines of lyrics for “Everyday” which could/is interpreted over and above fair use.
6. Vulture/New York Magazine. Again inbedded links to mp3 files – although no longer available.
7. Hip Online. Confirms that BS and the Neptunes worked on an unreleased unnamed ballad, No mention of song title.
8. USA Today. OK.
9. Billboard. Another “leaked track with embedded link to unauthorised YouTube.
10. Animation World Network refers to an advert called “Can Caper” NOT a song however.

--Richhoncho (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:Policy. I understand others may still want to keep this list and that is their right. However, it is still my contention above that 9 out 10 references do not establish that these are unreleased songs, and, more importantly, not all the references adhere to WP policy. If anybody wants to keep the list, then it is up to them to ensure the list adheres to WP policy at the minimum and/or rebuts my claims.
Furthermore, my view is that "unreleased" is meaningless, if BS sings a song in her kitchen while a child's recording, is that now "unreleased?" - what does "unreleased?" mean? It could mean any song (whether recorded/sung or even heard by BS or not!) that has not been officially released. How meaningful an article is that?
I cannot for the life of me see the validity of a list of unreleased songs if there is no List of songs recorded by Britney Spears. If such a list existed. then, subject to my comments in my original post, parts of this should be merged there and the quality of the BS articles rises, not decreases.
Earlier this month I put merge tags on the "unreleased" articles that also had a "list of songs recorded by." One of those has been now merged by another editor. If the nominator hadn't pre-empted me I would listed all the remaining "unreleased" articles in a bundle at AfD at some time in the future. Not many remain now, most have already gone because the fanbase has moved on.

--Richhoncho (talk) 09:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'd like to point out that the question isn't if the artist is notable, it is if the content belongs or not in an encyclopedia. Anyway all artists, in my opinion, should be considered notable, because even if Britney clearly is wherever you live, in China or Japan for example most people don't give a shit about her. In contrast, they have their own Chinese and Japanese artists that you don't know. So I vote for covering every artist that a reasonable number of people has heard of. And no, I don't like Britney Spears. I think she sucks.187.65.148.179 (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Status, yes, I know that the ASCAP links can be reformated and I have no objection to anybody trying improving the article. My question is, How does ASCAP confirm there is an "unreleased song?" still remains unaswered. As you think it does, can you explain how I have got it wrong? Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that some of the songs that are just sourced from ASCAP, for example, should be removed. As you are right, that doesn't provide that evidence. But, a lot of her unreleased songs have received coverage from third-party media sources. From the amount of them, I feel as if that shows that her unreleased songs have an amount of notability. I will work this weekend on fixing the links and personally going through them to see which ones can really be sourced properly. I will also see if I can find any additional sources for some of them (and remove that hideous Leak date section, who added that?). I was going to go through the list sooner, but I've been pretty busy. I wish I would have been able to get to it before it was delisted from FL status, but I can understand why it was.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy reclose with original outcome. The original close was perfectly correct, and Till is acting like an uncivil lout [1] who accuses anyone who disagrees with him of ignoring policy, just wasting community time and patience. Hectoring, badgering, and general undercompetence should not be indulged ad nauseam. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one is going to close this early as various issues with the article have been left unaddressed. Afd is not a headcount, and it's not as if the majority of these "keep" comments hold much weight regardless. Till 05:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just wanted to note that is is an AFD nomination, not a GA or FLC review, to state that "concerns" have been unaddressed. If the topic is notable, then the article is kept, regardless of its current state. — ΛΧΣ21 19:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is partially true, however, I have brought up the issue of WP:LINKVIO and it is every editors duty to ensure such links are removed. I can't see how anybody can close this AfD with the matter being unresolved - Whether this is by proving I am wrong or removing those links is another matter. To go on as if the matter had not be raised and not been dealt with is not in the spirit of WP. It really isn't about who agrees with who, but improving WP and ensuring its legal obligations are met. I'd happily be wrong every time if it improved WP. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • The WP:LINKVIO concerns don't belong to AFD. They are very problematic and this needs to be solved, but AFD is about notability. If the topic is notable, then it can stay. Which sources we can and cannot use is a matter of editorial discussion that can't (and may never) affect the notability of a topic; it affects the article's quality (it was delisted because of that). — ΛΧΣ21 00:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • These concerns absolutely belong in this discussion. Afd is not only about the notability of topics, per WP:Deletion. Till 01:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Just another red herring. The source can be cited without linking to it, of course, and the fact that a page may contain a copyvio doesn't mean its content can't provide verifying information. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • WP:DEL-REASON contains all the reasons to why an article should be deleted. I personally believe it shouldn't, but I won't die if this is eventually deleted. I see that the Linkvio issue is not enough to warrant the deletion of any article in general, unless all sources available to showcase the notability of the topic fall under Linkvio. It is, again, just my personal perspective of the situation; I have no personal feelings for any of these "unreleased songs" lists. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21 03:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Hahc for that, I copy below from WP:DEL-REASON, the highlighting is mine.
Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following (subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page):
Cheers.--Richhoncho (talk) 12:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyright violation is not the same as Linkvio: Copyvio relates to how the article is written (plagiarism and close paraphrasing), while Linkvio relates to how the sources include content that has not the necessary permission from their original owners. The first one (copyvio) is a clear reason for deletion while the latter (linkvio) is not. DEL-REASON highlights the first one, but ommits the second. — ΛΧΣ21 16:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here what some of WP:COPYVIO says, please refer to my list of comments about the references above for context. However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The fact that we are discussing sources means that the items of the topic are notable, which is enough to meet the correspondent notability guideline for lists: WP:LISTN. Which sources should we use to avoid WP:LINKVIO is another issue, but it cannot be used as an ad hominem argument to state that the topic is not notable because the sources in the article are copyright violations. We have yet still to prove that all possible sources are copyvios, but I should be correct by stating that this is not the case. Also, because this is a list, WP:ROUTINE cannot be applied here. — ΛΧΣ21 03:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the point entirely, I trust not deliberately. However, every editor is duty bound to remove any Linkvio. If this is done, then it is no longer a referenced article. Assuming goodwill I am trying to discuss here and not actually massacre the article. Very difficult when I am dealing with editors who appear not to care what can happen to Wikipedia.Cheers.--Richhoncho (talk) 12:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concerns and removing linkvios is totally acceptable and a good course of action. My point is that linkvio does not deminish the notability of the topic; sources can be replaced, and we can keep only the "unreleased" songs that has been covered without the possible linkvio issue. — ΛΧΣ21 17:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then please remove the linkvios as you know you should. I won't because I wish to avoid the accusation of vandalism. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I won't remove anything because I have no personal interest in this article. I just voiced my personal opinions and that's all I am willing to do. It is the responsibility of the creator or constant contributor of the list to do such things. Of course, anyone else can do it too. — ΛΧΣ21 19:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Will you ever stop nattering on about this, or whining that it's everybody's duty but yours to fix things? LINKVIO prohibits direct linking to copyright violations ("do not link to that copy of the work". It does not prohibit linking to sites that may link to or host copyright violations, or citing them as references without links. If your ersatz interpretation was correct, we'd have to remove all links to flickr and Commons. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am keeping on about it, because up to your post, everybody has ignored me and not try to rebut me (even though I made it clear that my interpretation may be wrong), therefore this isn't a discussion but a bunch of "keeps" irrespective of any policy, guideline or other. I can only assume I am dealing with a bunch of POV-pushing BS fans. The relevant words, which are clear and you say are wrong are, However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Commons is not relevant and I have no idea about Flickr. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_unreleased_Britney_Spears_songs_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1144346928"