Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doin' It (Big Boi 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. Consensus is that NSONGS is not met, but GNG is with additions subsequent to nomination. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doin' It (Big Boi 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)

Song does not appear to meet WP: NSONGS. Has not charted. StaticVapor message me! 21:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 00:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 00:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is enough news coverage for this release, I just hadn't added it yet. The amount of coverage alone that could be added passes the coverage in independent news sources criterion. I've just added several reliable publications to the article who have covered the song. Also, charting alone is not proof of a song being notable per WP:NSONGS, so I don't really think it matters—it just indicates a song may be notable. Ss112 01:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I only see coverage discussing the songs release, as there would be considering he is a notable artist. Without charting and expanded coverage in reliable sources, we do not have proof of long-standing notability. I have no problem with a Merge until the song establishes notability. StaticVapor message me! 02:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are also sources discussing it after its initial release. I'm expanding it as we speak. Long-standing notability is hard to determine at this point for any song, so I don't really see how that's a key factor or how that can be "proved"—even if there are sources reporting on a very popular song right now, including one that charts, we can't say that in two years' time anybody (including news sources) will be talking about it. Ss112 02:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment possible Merge: Why is there an inherent need to create new articles at the expense of a parent article? There would be absolutely no need for speculation of "song" notability under the parent article with a fork when warranted. Otr500 (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Otr500: What parent article? It's not from an album yet, so...Big Boi? I think we could find more info on the song than could feasibly be merged there. (Just want to say that I'm watching this page, so no need for pings back. I'm not sure if anybody else is though, hence my ping.) Ss112 18:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I would hope you would not discount Big Boi as a "parent" article? Are you suggesting that the only notability is is the song? These are the type arguments that keep Wikipedia fragmented with thousands of substandard articles when there is absolutely zero doubt that the content could have been started at the place it really should have been. There would have been no hint of promotion and I would hope no suggestion that the material would not expand and improve Big Boi. The popularity of a song is directly related to the popularity and notability of Big Boi -- Doin' It (Big Boi song). Otr500 (talk) 13:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how an article of over 6kB in size and with 10+ references is "substandard", and no, I'm not suggesting that the song is notable without Big Boi being attached to it. But that doesn't mean I agree with merging, because as I just said, I don't think it's feasible to merge all of what is there now to Big Boi. That would be giving undue weight to one song on a BLP. I also didn't make the article because I wanted to "promote" the song, so I also don't see how that's what you got out of it. That's like saying any article on a song is promoting that song, which is demonstrably false. Ss112 14:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ss112: should this song have charted by now on various Billboard charts, if it was ever going to chart? Or will it chart this week? Richard3120 (talk) 00:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also of note it has been released for a month and has yet to chart it appears. Only because @Richard3120: asked. StaticVapor message me! 02:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is also important to note that charting alone does not indicate whether or not a song should have a separate article; it is really more up to whether or not it has received enough coverage from third party, reliable sources to meet notability standards. It is just that songs that meet that requirement generally chart somewhere, but that is not always the case. Aoba47 (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: I do understand WP:NSONGS and WP: GNG. I made it clear in my posting, I only said that in response another user who questioned it. StaticVapor message me! 00:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. My message was not directed towards you. I wanted to clarify that point to anyone else who participates in this discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: My mistake then, and good clarification. With you indenting below my message as if you were replying to me, is what messed it up. Next time you might want to label it as *'''Comment''' without the indent. Happy editing. StaticVapor message me! 03:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good point. Apologies for my mistake, and I will make sure to be more aware of it in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 03:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: @Aoba47: I agree that charting isn't a guaranteed sign of notability, but I felt that here with the sources already cited, that would make it a more clear-cut case. Nevertheless, I think there are enough reliable sources already in the article to pass WP:NSONG. Richard3120 (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as it's yet to chart (really???) but appears to have received coverage in sources, even discounting the blogs. ——SerialNumber54129 17:03, 5 March 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.