Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bad Idea (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 keep. RL0919 (talk) 15:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Idea (Ariana Grande 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)

While this song did chart and received some coverage through album reviews, there is no standalone coverage about this song; therefore, it is not notable per WP:NSONGS which states that a song is "notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label". It also states that "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability", which is exactly what is being referenced in this article. It also explicitly states "that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created". This article should be redirected to its album, Thank U, Next. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 14:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I vote keep per WP:GNG. I get what Billiekhalidfan is saying, but the song has charted in almost 20 countries, and the article's "background and composition" section could be expanded with other composition details and reviews, even if they come from reviews of the album as a whole. I've done a quick Google search and posted some links for consideration on the article's talk page (just a handful of many similar articles). Additionally, this article needs a "Performances" section because she performed the song during the Sweetener Tour and at both Coachella and Lollapalooza. Mention of the remix(es?) should also be added. With the addition of "Remix", "Personnel", and "Reception" sections, I could see this being a nice little article. Finally, if editors decide the song is not independently notable, please just redirect and do not delete the page entirely, because the page is a possible search term and may be expanded further at a later date, especially since there may be more coverage still since this is Grande's most recent release. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At its core, WP:GNG (and its subject-specific variants) exist to filter out topics for which it would be impossible to write an article with substantial and verifiable information. If the only thing we can offer about a song is standard metadata like who performed it, who wrote it, who produced it, how long it is, which album it's from, etc. then we should not have an article about it (because Wikipedia is not a song database). But that's not the case here. The § Background and composition section, while not very long, provides some interesting (sourced) details about the song's composition. I think it would be a shame to remove this information from the encyclopedia. Also, secondary coverage is not limited to album reviews (this Rolling Stone feature that talks about the song's composition is not a review). Colin M (talk) 15:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Colin M, Agreed, and there's not even a "Reception" section yet... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: more information is being added to the article. It has received stand-alone coverage and has charted in many charts, enough to keep it. Paparazzzi (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Paparazzzi: Where is there stand-alone coverage? Billiekhalidfan (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - charting isn’t everything, but charting on 10-15 national charts? Come on. That’s significant. And there’s a few paragraphs of content too. Not a great nomination. Nom needs to rethink their priorities at AFD. Sergecross73 msg me 16:01, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Obviously meets WP:GNG, and likely any bar that a song article should also meet. Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:03, 24 October 2019 (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.