Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Songfacts (3rd 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 as follows: This is a web page, so the relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Notability (web)

Nicely, this was raised and debated.

On "multiple non-trivial published works "
- This specifically excludes "a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication." The sources provided late in this debate, Mental Floss and Mumbai Mirror, clearly fall into that category.
- The other sources have all been, in the opinons of the members of this debate, found to be similarly poor.
On "a well-known and independent award," neither "pick of the day," nor "site of the day" are awards. It must be noted that this criterion is the subject of frequent debate at Wikipedia talk:Notability (web), and in most cases consensus there interprets "award" quite strictly.
On "distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent," Rock's Backpages appears to lacks the editorial oversight.

I would be remiss in closing this to not make special mention of the comments by Opbeith. Yes, there are times when these debates verge on arbitrary. However everything is arbitrary. "What, 99 kmh is ok, but 102 kmh and I get a ticket?"

If, as is the rough consensus here, this article fails to conform to the guideline but really needs to be included in the encyclopedia, then the appropiate thing to do is to attempt to get the guideline improved.

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Songfacts[edit]

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

First AFD claimed that two personal websites were "reliable sources" and was closed as "keep" after only two !votes. As I pointed out in the last AFD, the only hits on Google News were "Songfacts said X about song Y" and nothing more, and the only hits on Google Books were along the same lines.

The sources currently in the article are somewhat better than what had been there before, but let's look at them:

A barely two-paragraph, first-person review from Mental Floss. Reliable source, but trivial.
A snippet from a segment on WGN radio that mentions it only in passing.
An article in USA Weekend that I'll give benefit of the doubt.
A solitary, short listing in Men's Journal in a totally arbitrary "100 best" list.
A primary source.

The second AFD closed as "no consensus". There, the "keep"s consisted of:

One user who added sources that were trivial to the point of irrelevance (Yahoo! pick of the week)
An WP:ITSUSEFUL !vote
One who cited a book with a one-sentence mention that literally amounted to "I just looked something up on Songfacts".
One user who turned up a handful of articles whose mention of the site was limited to similar "lists of cool websites" and/or otherwise trivial coverage.

In short, I still see nothing that constitutes multiple non-trivial third party sources. The fact that it's been online for 12 years means nothing. The fact that they interview lots of artists means nothing. The fact that the site is useful means NOTHING. I remain completely unconvinced that it meets any criterion of WP:WEB. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I thought hard about this as I'm a big fan of songfacts, but I don't think it passes the established rules for notability. To quote WP:WEB, "Articles which merely include an external link and a brief description of its contents may be deleted." Wickedjacob (talk) 06:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be a narrow dividing line at Wikipedia between encyclopaedic rigour and erratic autocracy. When an article shows evidence of "pragmatic notability" even if beneath the bar of Wikipedia criteria and there has been a reasonable amount of evidence of support for the article's retention, repeated and emphatic pursuit of deletion suggests a determination to force the issue - supporters of retention have to return to the issue and use up more time and effort or let the issue go by default, alternatively they simply don't notice that it's been revived. Wikipedia contributors do not have an infinite ability to participate in debates about deletion and constructive input. There comes a point where enforcement of Wikipedia criteria becomes a mechanism of haphazard damage rather than systematic improvement. "May be deleted" is not "Must be deleted". Opbeith (talk) 10:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All good points. I still don't think it meets notability as written, though. Exactly because there isn't infinite ability to debate, there are times where letter of the law must be allowed to do its job, which is to keep us from having to reinvent the wheel at every situation. If the policy is not working, the solution is to work toward a rewriting of the policy, not to eternally fight for articles that fail the community accepted policy. Wickedjacob (talk) 07:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be frank, when people know how much of a bloodbath it is trying to argue the details of notability in reference to specific articles, who is going to waste life attempting to raise the general issue in the face of the bit-between-the-teeth determination to purge that's so often evident? Opbeith (talk) 11:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Just to be specific, the cumulative weight of references and recommendations by Bloomberg, Daily Mirror, USA Today accompanying other information is indicative of non-triviality however laconic individual references may be. Opbeith (talk) 11:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well known website, mentioned and cited by reliable sources, as discussed in prior AfDs and quickly shown by Google News archives[1] and Google Books [2]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me which of those is non-trivial. All I'm seeing is "X said Y according to Songfacts.com". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle Times, Bloomberg, the list goes on, just click on the link. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the first two I saw. The Seattle Times mention is only one sentence, and Bloomberg only says "X said Y according to Songfacts.com". Tell me how that's non-trivial. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Songfacts is cited by the likes of Bloomberg, that's not only a pretty strong case at RSN, but the many, many times its been cited in different media suggests notability as an information resource, independent of the "WEB" guideline. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Previous two AFD's were from the same nom. Article is being used in an WP:RSN debate at present, also initiated by the nom. It would be disruptive to remove the site at this point. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How does the fact that people are questioning its reliability as a source relate in ANY way to us needing to keep it as an article?????? Active Banana (^bananaphone 19:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There used to be quite a bit more "meat" to this article, see this old version [3] Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- or "artificial meat flavored by-products" when you actually look at the content and "sources". Active Banana (^bananaphone 21:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The podcast[4] from WHO-AM was pretty good. A 25-minute interview with the founder of the website. That's the kind of source that establishes notability. Though, it looks like that's already been restored along with some of the others. Thanks. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: At first glance, I would have voted keep, but the examined sources are very brief and trivial. JacksOrion (talk) 07:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It passes WP:WEB, which states "Web-specific content may be notable based on meeting any one of the following criteria"

It meets all 3 of the criteria, not just one:

1) The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.

The site was created by DJs and gets a lot of coverage in radio segments, which are hard to cite, but these segments on major news/talk stations demonstrate substantial coverage and notability:

WHO-AM [5]
WGN-AM [6]

I understand how the Men's Journal, Chicago Tribune, Howard Stern, NPR and many other numerous media mentions might be considered trivial, but these are not:

Mental Floss [7]
Mumbai Mirror [8]
USA Weekend

2) The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.

In May, 2002, Yahoo! was the dominant search engine, and a Yahoo! Pick was a well-known and independent award from a major organization. [9]
More recently, it was twice named "Site of the Day" by the Daily Mirror

3) The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.

Some of their content is syndicated on Rock's Backpages:

[10][11] Ndugu (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2011 (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.