Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harajuku Girls (song)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 redirect to Love. Angel. Music. Baby.. Consensus that it should not have a standalone article as it does not meet WP:NSONGS. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 17:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harajuku Girls (song)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Harajuku Girls (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSONGS. Most of this article's content is about the Harajuku Girls dancers and not the song itself, including an interview where Gwen Stefani responded to allegations of racism. Critical reviews are in the context of album reviews. The only requirement of NSONGS that matters is that songs must have a certain significance on its own, independent of its parent album. As most of this article deals with the Harajuku Girls dancers and album reviews, it does not satisfy NSONGS. It may be useful to note that this is a fairly recent article. The content of this article, specifically on allegations of racism, can be reasonably merged with Harajuku Girls (which already mentions this issue), HĐ (talk) 10:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. HĐ (talk) 10:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Partially Merge some material to Harajuku Girls. I disagree with the nominator's point about reviews that are only about the album. It is true that most of the reviews cited in the article cover the whole album, but they also mention this particular song in detail. So the song has attracted critical commentary in its own right. I think the song article's "Background and composition" and "Critical reception" sections are supported by sources that offer specific information on the song. However, after this the song article repeats the larger critiques of Stefani's use of the Harajuku Girls that are already covered at their article. In this case I agree with the nominator. Merge non-song material over there and reduce the song article to facts about the song itself. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Doomsdayer520: Pretty much any song can receive some comments within album reviews, so I disagree that album reviews with passing-by comments on this song make it significant on its own. (Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability). I agree with your assessment on the information regarding criticism allegations. HĐ (talk) 02:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
...but in the music media there are relatively few professional reviews that are specifically about songs, unless they are single-only releases. Otherwise many reviews are about albums, but within those there can be a lot of text about one of the album's songs. My opinion is that this has happened for the "Harajuku Girls" song, but that's just my two cents and I will not argue with anyone who thinks otherwise. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Doomsdayer520: That is why there is a consensus that most songs articles should not exist in the first place, given their failure to satisfy notability. Yes, that's your two cents, and of course you won't change your mind. But things should go with policy that has been discussed beforehand (there was a messy commotion with this notability requirement, but things have reached this state). Alas, this song did not even chart on record charts, which is often the most used excuse for notability. HĐ (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Carbrera: I am sorry, but the "Harajuku Girls" era clearly refers to the four-dancer squad and not the song itself, as indicated in the sources you cited. Some information from the sources that you cited:
  • Complex: the beginning of Stefani's "Harajuku Girls" era, in which she was regularly accompanied by four Japanese backup dancers at concerts and promotional events
  • Bustle: not a quality music source to begin with (WP:RSP)
  • InStyle: It's that track and Stefani's troupe of backup dancers that drew criticism at the time This can be interpreted that the song was notable, but then the article falls back to discuss the dancers (note that they use "the Harajuku Girls", which obviously is not referring to the song)
  • Global News: This source also basically reports what the other sources already did. This mentions specifically a performance of "Harajuku Girls" song that was controversial, but the overall discussion of the article was the Harajuku Girls dancers. This information can be reasonably merged into the other article, and not enough to establish notability of the song (I believe if more coverage on this specific performance is available, then I'll think otherwise)
  • I don't see where this specific song is mentioned in Rolling Stone; they did mention about a Harajuku-inspired show of some sort, but not this song.

Most sources you cited report on Stefani's comments on the dancers (again, "the Harajuku Girls" clearly does not refer to the song), with passing-by comments on the song that barely mentions any in-depth analysis on its music, lyrics, context or significance on its own. — HĐ (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To add, some recently added information can be qualified as WP:CFORK and can be directly merged into the other article on the dancers right away: "Over the years, Stefani’s so-called 'bow-down' to Asian culture has raised eyebrows across the globe" All of these reviews have the same theme of criticizing cultural appropriation, which can be cut down to 1-2 sentences (i.e. "Media publications have long criticized Stefani for exoticizing Japanese culture. Stefani responded in a 2014 interview with Time that she did not regret at all...") but again, Stefani is addressing the dancers in the Time interview as I mentioned above. Some sentences are even misinterpretations of what the sources are saying (for instance: Furthermore, she compared the usage of the dancers on the track to puppetry while the source only cited this song as an example for Stefani's during her 2004-05 performances not limited to this song). Trying to cherry-pick certain mentions from a series of thematically related articles does not help establish notability of this song. I am pretty sure a round of spotchecks for the newly added content, and we could barely find any in-depth analysis of the song. HĐ (talk) 02:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wholeheartedly agree that parts of the article should appear in other similar articles like suggested above, but I happen to believe that this song is independently notable outside of Love. Angel. Music. Baby. and Harajuku Girls. Some of the criticism happens to be aimed at all of the above, not just one thing or two. The sources I listed above, are just some of what is used in the article, and they happen to be much longer than just a few sentences. I regularly remove articles in the mainspace that are better served as redirects, and while I will accept the result of this discussion regardless, I just do not agree at all that this particular song fails to meet WP:NSONGS. Carbrera (talk) 03:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]
@Carbrera: The criticism targets mainly at "cultural appropriation", which is directed towards the use of dancers as props. The "Music and lyrics" part can be incorporated into Love.Angel.Music.Baby, and everything else incorporated into Harajuku Girls (the dancers). I don't think there are sources with in-depth analysis into this song on its own, given that the sources you cited all mentioned the cultural appropriation allegations, and then name-checks this song in one or two sentences. Even the observation of cultural appropriation is the same for all of them, without further analysis on how it affected Stefani's image or the album's reception/performance. That said, I may change my mind if you managed to improve this article based on sources that satisfy NSONGS (that is, sources that are not album reviews and not news, especially in-depth scholarly analysis). Thank you for your good faith in removing redirects, although I don't deem it necessary to create a directory on every album track that does not receive independent coverage. HĐ (talk) 05:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a notable song, and most sources are from album reviews anyway. Redirect to the album's page. AngelOfDestiny (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there is a piece from Time that discusses this track and isn't an album review. Not sure whether that (along with the links Carbrera provided) qualifies as enough to warrant a song page. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SNUGGUMS: That was the source I linked in the argument. The article mostly discusses the Harajuku Girls dancers--it quoted Margaret Cho to identify the problem with the dancers--and the criticisms targeting cultural appropriation/racism also mainly deals with the dancers. The song is mentioned in a brief sentence, which quotes its lyrics ("A Ping-Pong match between Eastern and Western"), and then falls back to discuss the dancers. That's why I think this information belongs more to the article on the dancers, and not this song. HĐ (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw something separate in the first link you gave (addressing racism allegations) while the article I linked requests an apology from Gwen. They just happened to come from the same publication. Nevertheless, I see your point on the dancers getting more focus, so it seems like the best option is to redirect this track to parent album. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the album article. Even if coverage from the album reviews was considered a sign of notability (which it isn't per NSONGS), the song didn't chart, isn't certified by any agency, and a lot of it is only about the dancers. This song just doesn't seem to have any significance to warrant an article. Heartfox (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Harajuku Girls did not contain information regarding the group's controversy until after this article's nomination for deletion, contrary to the nominator's explanation above. Carbrera (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • @Carbrera: I did not claim that this article had contained such information before this article exists. If I happened to claim so, please quote my words.
  • To clarify: my main argument is that this article largely consists of information that could have been used to expand pre-existing articles. The "Harajuku Girls" era, as I said, is not about this song, but about the four Japanese backup dancers at concerts and promotional events, so don't get this twisted. If we subtract anything not suitable for NSONGS--album reviews, album discussions, and information on the dancers--then this article barely survives a Stub-class status. I apologize if my moving information from this article to the Harajuku Girls article did not attribute to your edits, but feel free to claim your credits in the talk page, and to me that was an appropriate move (not in terms of authorship, probably), because the information I moved consisted of information barely related to this song. HĐ (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • HĐ – You wrote "The content of this article, specifically on allegations of racism, can be reasonably merged with Harajuku Girls (which already mentions this issue)" on December 31st. Besides the Margaret Cho statements that were added in 2009, the Harajuku Girls article did not mention criticism until your edit on January 2nd. If you had added the information in your own words without copying directly what I wrote in this article, I would not have even mentioned this. Carbrera (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • You are misinterpreting my words. "The content... can be reasonably merged" has no relation to "this article had contained such information before this article exists", like how you took my words. HĐ (talk) 04:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the album article, since this song doesn't pass WP:NSONG. HĐ's assessment of the "era" relating to the backup crew, rather than the song, is spot on. Onel5969 TT me 03:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MarioJump83! 10:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Love. Angel. Music. Baby. (fails WP:NSONGS) and merge some of the content in the article to that article. The racism controversy/any other important stuff can be added into the article. As well, the era that HĐ mentioned clearly references the backup dancers used during that era, from the sources provided above. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 19:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Love. Angel. Music. Baby.. Fails WP:NSONG. The song hasn't charted in any country. HĐ's selective merging of the discussion on cultural appropriation to Harajuku Girls is justified. Since the sources mostly address the backup dancers rather than the song itself, so there's no reason keep a standalone article for it. Ashleyyoursmile! 14:46, 15 January 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Harajuku_Girls_(song)&oldid=1000776356"