Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oh No (Marina and the Diamonds 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 keep. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh No (Marina and the Diamonds song)[edit]

(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)

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

Little to no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources leads me to believe this fails NSONG. However, Aspects disputes this due to chart positions. (NSONG, it should be noted, says that factors such as record charts "suggest that a song or single may [emphasis not mine] be notable, though a standalone article should still satisfy the aforementioned criteria" of "be[ing] the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label".

I Am Not a Robot and Hollywood (Marina and the Diamonds song) will be added to this AfD shortly for similar reasons. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (spiel) @ 20:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (notify) @ 20:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. The articles use The Guardian, BBC 1, NME, Vogue, Pop Justice as sources. Since when aren't those notable enough? All three are in her most downloaded songs of hers in the iTunes, more than singles that had more success. All three music videos have over 10 million views on YouTube. They were used in advertisments ("The Big Bang Theory", "Awkward"). They also charted, as you mentioned. They have information about the creative process, they're not just a cover art and a chart thrown in. Alecsdaniel (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that most of the sources used are about the songs' parent album or the artist - that does not demonstrate the notability of the song. Neither do YouTube views or ad placements. WP:NSONG says that notability is demonstrated by significant coverage in sources, and that songs whose coverage mostly occurs in the context of their parent albums should not have individual articles. –Chase (talk / contribs) 05:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, her songs are published on musicnotes.com [1]. I've managed to gather these news:[2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14] Retroactively speaking, the songs seem to be referenced by the media, following the release of her second album; here's one about "Hollywood" [15] and one about "I Am Not a Robot" [16]. In an interview for her next album, the first questions are only about "Hollywood" [17]. I think it proves they're all notable. Alecsdaniel (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1 comes from a primary source (the publishing company), 4 is a lyric database (of questionable legality, at that), 5 is a retail listing, 7 is not SIGCOV, 8 is the artist's video only with no coverage, 9-14 and 16 come from blogs (not reliable), and 17 is about the artist and one of her albums with the song receiving passing mention (again, not SIGCOV). As for the rest, these for the most part aren't particularly fleshed out and that leaves about 1-2 brief articles about each song, which, again, I would not define as "significant coverage". No reason the information can't be contained in album articles. –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

9-14 aren't blogs, they're the Popjustice website. 8 proves the release was whorthy enough to be mentioned, while 17 doesn't just mention the song, the first four questions are about it - and this is while talking about the new album, which didn't feature the said single. Alecsdaniel (talk) 02:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Popjustice is a website run by a respected veteran music journalist. I don't agree that the coverage in the other reliable sources listed is as trivial as you describe. Extraordinary Machine (talk) 12:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Sufficient coverage exists to have meaningful articles, and the singles have sufficient real world significance. Why the nominator feels these should be deleted is beyond me. At the very least they would be merged to the artist or associated album. --Michig (talk) 07:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Top 40 singles in the UK; notability demonstrated by non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent sources. Extraordinary Machine (talk) 12:01, 8 January 2015 (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.