Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moonlight (Ariana Grande 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 Dangerous Woman (album). A word of advice: all arguments, including those of the nominator, should be grounded in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Kurykh (talk) 04:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moonlight (Ariana Grande song)[edit]

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

This is a SONG on an album. Just a song. Not a single. Not a signature song. Not a live anthem. It is not notable in any way. Kellymoat (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've not reviewed sourcing yet, but IF there is not enough coverage, this page should be redirected, not deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The song has information enough to a creation of a solo article, it received positive commentaries by music critics and has a background (it was set to be the titled track of Ariana Grande's third studio album which was renamed to Dangerous Woman). Send to article to deletion is a preconception about the page that has text enough. LikeGaga (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've said this to many people --- I could write a big fluffy article about you and I. Does that make either of us notable? Kellymoat (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment diving in as one of those people... if we were as well-known as an Ariana Grande song or were as closely associated with someone of such obvious notability, that might be a fair place to start from. Otherwise, it seems tendentious. I've not looked into this one properly yet, but so far the argument seems to be "it's not a single so it doesn't matter". That's not especially persuasive. The article does seem a little breathless but from a skim-read it's not clear that it's not improvable or that the subject isn't worth including. Mortee (talk) 00:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to start focusing your nominations around sourcing, or lack there of, so you can stop wasting yours and everyone's time on these sorts of arguments. Sergecross73 msg me 04:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am uncertain either way about this particular AfD (I am leaning more towards redirecting this personally), but I have to agree with the above comment. The reasons for nominating this article were extremely poorly constructed. It should be organized around the lack of reliable, third-party coverage on the song. The fact that it is an album track is irrelevant and the fact that it is not a "signature song" or a "live anthem" is also irrelevant. I would caution the nominator to be more careful in the future when constructing AfDs and to not be so condescending towards other contributors who want to discuss the notability of the subject either way. I have noticed the nominator doing similar things since I first saw them in this AfD and it is troubling. Either way, the discussion should be focused on whether or not the song is covered in reliable, third-party resources outside that of a passing mention or brief inclusion in a list. Aoba47 (talk) 02:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, I feel the opposite way. We should be able to nominate articles without needing to justify why. The nomination isn't why something gets removed, the votes are. One should be able to nominate, and then let the discussion take place. I mean, certainly an article of less-than-notable status shouldn't be allowed to stay just because the nominator didn't say the right thing in the nomination. Kellymoat (talk) 19:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is in fact your responsibility as the nominator to fully explain your rationale about why you believe that this article should be deleted. I am only providing advice for you for future AfD nominations as I have noticed that this is a trend with your nominations. This will prevent misinterpretation about the reasons for why you are nominating something for AfD (as pointed out by Sergecross73 in an above comment). I would encourage you to be more careful with your explanation/arguments when nominating articles in the future and to focus them more on sourcing. Aoba47 (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please, stop being stubborn and just take the advice. If your end goal is to get non-notable articles deleted, then its in your best interest to write better nominations that don't lead to wasted time in arguing over the semantics. Its a very simple, easy adjustment to make, and it would help everyone, including you. If you just would have written "Fails GNG, no dedicated sources", over half the responses in the debate (your included) wouldn't have been necessary, and we'd probably have a consensus already, because you would have guided the discussion in the right direction. Sergecross73 msg me 13:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We are public persons? We're inside of a album or an artistic work? So, your comparison is nonsense, sorry. The article has text enough (as I explained), background, positive reception and chart position. Exist a lot of articles about songs non released commercially in the Wikipedia, "Joanne (Lady Gaga song)", several Rihanna's articles (Fading (song) and various songs from Unapologetic) are examples of "just" songs with verifiable material. Concluding, there's any strong reason to deletion of the page. All text are supported by reliable sources. User: LikeGaga (Talk) 23:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To nominate it for deletion purely because it wasn't a single is indeed incorrect - it's not a requirement. That being said, there is a strong correlation here - most non-singles are not notable in the Wikipedia sense if the word. What it needs to come down to is whether or not there are third party sources that cover it in significant detail. Do we have sources that are largely centered around the song? Or are they all one-liners about the song ripped from album reviews and interviews. That'll be the deciding factor on whether it's kept or redirected. Sergecross73 msg me 04:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, if the reviews contained in Moonlight (Ariana Grande song)#Critical reception are deemed independent, non-trivial and from reliable sources than Moonlight may meet WP:GNG, but WP:NSONG also has "If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created.", so as the critical reception reviews are about the whole album then this looks shaky. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - due to lack of sourcing dedicated to the song itself. I'm willing to change my mind if someone can show otherwise, but everything I spotchecked was just passing mentions ripped from album reviews and interviews. Sergecross73 msg me 18:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Sergecross73's comment. Aoba47 (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2017 (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.