Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Break My Heart Again

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 delete and redirect to Finneas O'Connell. Disappointing to have to depreciate votes due to canvassing Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Break My Heart Again[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)

The article fails the Notability guidelines for songs in Wikipedia as not only none of the three bullet points in the guidelines are met, but also there is not "subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label". It displays two reliable sources, including Our Culture mag that discusses the song and Alternative Press that only mentions Finneas releasing a new song and video for it, so it was barely discussed. The rest on the article focuses on his accomplishments with Billie Elish and there is one interview with him that falls under the "This excludes 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", so it shouldn't be taken into consideration. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is obviously way more than two reliable sources. Atwood Magazine and CelebMix are also reliable sources. I've seen both sources used for articles that are at GA! Note: And I hope Maranofan doesn't cause more problems here. DarklyShadows (talk) 19:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reability of Celebmix has been contested several times, Atwood is an interview, therefore it fails "self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work". MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MarioSoulTruthFan Take a look at VKTM and tell me what you think. Take a look at the first source that is used MUTIPLE times. The article uses only this source for most of it and it's at GA! DarklyShadows (talk) 01:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the first thing about that article, but it seems it only provides one source, if you feel like it should be deleted and not pass GA, its up to you. Once more, this is not the place to have said discussion. My nomination stays in for this article. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DarklyShadows, having reviewed VKTM, I've nominated it for deletion. I don't think it meets WP:NSONGS. It shouldn't have passed WP:GAN IMO because it fails criteria 2 (verifiable) as a significant proportion of the content is not independent, and secondly, it fails criteria 3 (broad) because there are many aspects of the song which are not discussed. But that's not a conversation for here. The deletion conversation of said topic is up for discussion at the article's page. ≫ (Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 21:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (my preference) or Redirect to Finneas O'Connell - For about the seventh time it is necessary to state that a Finneas song is not notable just because it was released as a single. Per the above discussion, whether or not CelebMix is reliable does not matter too much for this song because that publication only announced the single's release and said a few nice things about the video. The other magazine-like sources in the article, like Atwood Magazine and Our Culture Mag, could be reliable for this article if they did anything more than announce the song's existence, which they don't. A "reliable" source is a good start, but it still must say something significant about the item. All these Finneas song articles by DarklyShadows are passionately written but give us little more than fan trivia. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Finneas O'Connell: Same thoughts with Finneas' songs nominated for deletion. Barely found anything about the song. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable song, no significant coverage, nothing to merge. Offtopic, but I would never use CelebMix as a source.—N Ø 17:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I know this did not chart but it was released as a standalone single and a music video was released, so I see notability --Kyle Peake (talk) 21:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kyle Peake and another user were canvassed with non-neutral pleases to take part in the discussion. I've warned DarklyShadows with an appropriate message. ≫ (Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 22:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Apologies for intruding on this discussion. In response to the keep rationale, notability is not given to a song because it was released as a single or was promoted with a music video. Discussions on notability should focus on whether or not the subject received significant coverage in third-party, reliable sources. Aoba47 (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, WP:NSONGS says that "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label, "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album". In light of the last sentence, all of these independent releases could be contained on the artists page. ≫ (Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 21:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - this is the he same issue we had with early Twenty One Pilots material. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED . Just because the subject has achieved mainstream popularity does not make all of his old material notable. It doesn’t meet the WP:GNG. Only a plausible search term. Sergecross73 msg me 03:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The coverage of the music video is applicable and is a reason to keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just want to note that Robert McClenon was also canvassed here by article creator. So, to summarise, this discussion has a grand total of 0 keep votes from neutral users.--N Ø 08:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect: this clearly fails WP:NSONGS because it doesn't meet any of the three basic criteria there and isn't notable in any other way: a released music video of the song is not itself a notable event, and its discussion in the given source was basically a sentence saying the song had dropped, another saying that the music video had dropped (quoted in the article), and then a sentence that says he has dropped several singles but no album, before the article pivots to gush about the artist's sister, Billie Eilish, at far greater length. Not a source of any quality, and certainly not "non-trivial" as required by NSONGS. Also doesn't meet WP:GNG, and as noted earlier, Finneas's notability does not extend to each of his works, which need their own notability. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Robert McClenon Nirvanaisbae (talk) 04:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser note: Nirvanaisbae is a confirmed sockpuppet of DarklyShadows (now known as "The Ultimate Boss"), who commented above. Mz7 (talk) 02:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 05:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial coverage of a song being released isn't enough to cut it with notability. same goes for the music video IMO. There has to be multiple in-depth reviews in reliable sources for this to be notable and there isn't any. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:36, 15 July 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.