Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alice (Lady Gaga 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. Stifle (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alice (Lady Gaga song)[edit]

[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)

Fails WP:NSONGS when (outside of commentary from artist, label, producers, and songwriters), the only credible sources discussing this track are album reviews. That page specifically states media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work don't count as sufficient coverage for the song. It also goes on to say Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. 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. As a result, the citations used here aren't enough to warrant a page for the track. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. The song has charted in more than a dozen countries and has been discussed in many reputable sources. You can bold all the text you want, but the content is not based on press releases, record labels, 'self-interested parties', etc. There are even more sources to incorporate into the text. The current article is a work in progress, as evidenced by the tag at the top of the page. I appreciate SNUGGUMS' concerns but this article should be kept and improved, not deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charts (or lack thereof) are entirely moot in this case. They don't negate how every reference used (at least at the time of this writing) that goes beyond brief mentions (except for one cumulative paragraph here at most) is either comments from self-involved parties or album reviews, and I thought my above comment already made it clear that album reviews (which this page heavily relies on) aren't enough on their own to keep song pages. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The song fails to meet notability, moreover all the sources available on the article page and web come mostly from album reviews. Charting it only indicates that a song may be notable, not that it is, see WP:NS. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the song does not meet the WP:GNG requirements, would a redirect to Chromatica be preferable rather than an outright deletion as this could be a plausible search term? Aoba47 (talk) 23:31, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether WP:GNG is met (moot when it doesn't meet WP:NSONGS and specific notability criteria takes precedence for music when it exists), I'd be fine with a redirect and tried to do that myself earlier per WP:Be bold, but then took this to AFD after that was contested. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the page should be redirected instead of deleted IF the subject is deemed not notable. Also, SNUGGUMS, you've already made your case, there's no need to reply to every editors' comments here when they disagree with your assessment. Finally, for the record, you jumped to AfD before letting more editors weigh in re: notability (actually, someone there also agreed the song is notable). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. I think we have a similar perspective, but I just wanted to raise the question. I do think it is concerning that from the titles, none of the sources seem to be about the song alone, but I unfortunately do not have the time right now to add more or be of any help here. Apologies for that. Aoba47 (talk) 03:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In my opinion, if this article expanded the way "911" and "Sine from Above" expanded [adding a section about "Chromatica I"], this article would be stay-worthy. infsai (dyskusja) 08:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Such expansions would require sources that aren't album reviews, preferably pieces that specifically focus on this individual track. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 11:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The song charted and also reliable sources mention things specifically about this song in their album reviews. Dream Focus 16:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Charted in several countries and it is one of the most discussed songs from the album. --Sricsi (talk) 16:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio

10:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:IGNORINGATD. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chromatica#Songs per Andrew Davidson (who weirdly voted keep while arguing cited a thing about redirecting being an option) and WP:IGNORINGATD. Alice is already mentioned for a full paragraph in that article. Which I think is enough. There's zero reason to have a separate article for every single song from the album just because they are by Lady Gaga. Especially considering there are no reliable sources specifically about the song to substantiate that it is notable enough on it's own. Although it did chart, which maybe could be used as a keep rational, it seems like it didn't chart that highly except for in two sub charts. Which doesn't seem like enough on it's own without articles specifically discussing it. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. Right now the album article has 3 sentences about "Alice", which is fine, but does not give readers the level of detail possible based on sourcing. The song article is too much content to just 'upmerge' into the album article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be to much to merge if the badly sourced stuff is cut out of it. Plus, more then half the article is just the chart. Which isn't necessary. Especially the ones where it charted like 112th or whatever. There's zero reason charting that low is worth mentioning. Plus the credits section is totally pointless name dropping. A lot of the quotes could be summarized to. Which is really how articles are suppose to be written and would cut it down by quit a lot. After doing all that the article would be like 1/5th it's current size if not less. Which would be totally fine to merge. So, I don't think your argument is valid. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well, I don't think downplaying 'charts' and 'credits' is a great argument either, so let's just agree to disagree. :) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call not listing random studio personnel downplaying the credits. They aren't suppose to be an exhaustive list of anyone that had anything to do with the songs creation, no matter how menial. Otherwise, you should include the doorman and whoever brought her launch. Plus, they were the same people worked on the album. So, it's duplicate information that's already in the other article (or should be) anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The Credits/personnel section is exactly what it's supposed to be, consistent with other Wikipedia articles about individual songs. There's no point in going back and forth about this; you've clearly made up your mind and I'm simply disagreeing. Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is too much reliably sourced information in the article to delete or redirect without merging. But given how extensive this article is, a merge to Chromatica would place undue weight on this song within the album article. So even though a lot of the sourcing for this article is from album reviews, I think we need to let GNG trump NSONGS and keep this article as is. Rlendog (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: NSONGS be damned, this article meets the GNG, and as Rlendog says, a merge/redirect blows the main article out of the water. Done deal. Ravenswing 05:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per reasons above. It has received WP:SIGCOV, albeit not independently. It has charted in several countries as well. That said, the article easily passes WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 08:00, 26 August 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.