Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let Her Burn

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 keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:28, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let Her Burn[edit]

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

Let Her Burn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although Black is widely known for her song Friday (released in 2011) this album has received pre-release coverage but it seems to me it's insufficient to prove lasting notability. Bedivere (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bedivere (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This clearly meets the WP:GNG, with the amount of coverage that it has already received, including being placed on multiple "most anticipated album" lists. In any case, there are also already singles released from the album, which have themselves received coverage as existing releases. BD2412 T 01:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Talk page, not the list itself. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most sources are from Queerly and the Brooklyn Vegan, unsure if they're RS. I don't see any sort of critical discussion in RS that I recognize. Oaktree b (talk) 02:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you show me where in the WP:GNG there is a requirement to use "RS that I recognize"? I see no credible argument that Queerty (not "Queerly") and BrooklynVegan are not reliable sources for this purpose, and even if they were not, the PopSugar listing here is clearly reliable and sufficiently in-depth, and the DIY source fairly strongly supports that as well. BD2412 T 02:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      No requirement, but I spend my time here get to know certain sources well-enough. Including various overseas media outlets that I didn't recognize before and can safely say without further analysis that they're ok. That's why it's not a vote but a discussion. We learn as we go along. Oaktree b (talk) 05:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Please note that more sources have since developed and/or been added. Some of these have been commented on by participants below as sources recognized by the relevant Wikiproject as acceptable for articles in this area. BD2412 T 05:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, Uproxx literally just published a piece on the album, which I have now added to the article. BD2412 T 02:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm still unconvinced about the lasting notability of this album. Bedivere (talk) 03:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then let me quote what Clash has to say about this: "Debut album ‘Let Her Burn’ is out next year, and it builds on a foundation of singles that have lit up the internet. Amassing an incredible selection of bops, Rebecca Black blends superb lyricism that display in full 360 with impeccable songwriting. It’s something to behold". In short, Black has what the source describes as "a colossal online audience" of which you were unaware. BD2412 T 03:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        I am not unaware of Black's "colossal online audience" as I suggested in the nomination itself, she was the singer of an internet phenomenon back in 2011 and has consistently released self published singles. Black's notability and her "colossal online audience", however, do not necessarily inherit their notability. The album is yet to be considered notable. It may be or it may not be. The currently available sources can't tell, as I have said before, it will have lasting notability. Bedivere (talk) 05:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        I have to add that both singles "Crumbs" and "Look at you" have failed to appear in Billboard charts. Her last appearance was ten years ago with the "Friday" follow-up "Saturday". [1] Her "colossal online audience" has not made her "Let Her Burn" singles popular. Bedivere (talk) 06:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:NALBUM lists several different routes by which an album can be deemed notable. Having songs chart is one of them, but not the only one. If you are concerned that Clash magazine is mistaken in evaluating the likely popularity of this album based on the performer's fanbase, please feel free to call them up and tell them they have gotten it wrong and should retract the story. If you are able to get them to do so, I will withdraw my !vote in this discussion. BD2412 T 04:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        It is not my duty nor is in my interests to mail a magazine and try to convince them to overturn their own, legitimate story. BD2412, we do not have to agree on this one and while it is pretty obvious this is going to be kept, I do not think it is notable enough to merit its own article. But whatever, I may be wrong as well. Bedivere (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        I have just added another source to the article (bringing the total up to 21), and note that this album is now on four different "most anticipated" lists (Queerty, Them, PopSugar, and DIY). To add another quote from one of these, the Them article says: "Nobody is as surprised as me that the singer of 2011's viral hit "Friday" is not only releasing her debut album in 2023, but that it's fucking good". Of course, tastes may vary, but the proposition that there is any chance that this album will be non-notable has, at this point, been washed away by WP:HEY. Given the buildup provided by these sources tapping the album as an anticipated hit, if it fails to register as such at this point it will be notable as a failure. The critical reception of the two songs already released does, however, tend to indicate that the album will be a notable success rather than a notable failure. BD2412 T 05:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Easy keep: as BD2412 said above, the prerelease coverage in this article is plenty enough already. As for Oaktree claiming that "most" of the sources are from Queerty and BrooklynVegan, there are currently 13 references on page and only one each of those are from those sites, and those sites are both reliable anyway. And the rest of the sites are all independent coverage, with at least four being listed at WP:RSMUSIC so that's already enough for an easy pass. QuietHere (talk) 08:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Enough sources talking about the album, and it'll probably only increase. Ss112 12:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article's creators may have jumped the gun, but the album is now about a month away and easily has enough reliable coverage as an upcoming release by a known musician. The nominator's use (several times) of the term of "lasting notability" is curious; depending on the intention that term either contradicts WP:NTEMP or reflects a personal opinion about the musician's history. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Rebecca Black per WP:TOOSOON. I am looking through the sources and most seem to parrot each other almost word for word. While Rebecca is talked about in depth (she is notable hence her article), little is mentioned about this album other than its upcoming release date. This can easily be summarized under Rebecca Black#Career. We should wait until more information comes out about the album itself in the form of reviews. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Knowledgekid87: Can you provide some examples of sources that "parrot each other almost word for word"? I have read them all, and there are several quite distinct sources, even though they generally express a positive reception for the singles released thus far. BD2412 T 18:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I will go through the sources...
        • 1st - Mentions Rebecca's background, mentions the album's upcoming release, and then mentions a quote by Black.
        • 2nd - Mentions the album's upcoming release and a quote by Black.
        • 3rd - mentions Rebecca's background, mentions the album's upcoming release, mentions and focuses on her new single "Crumbs" (not the album itself), and a quote by Black.
        • 4th - - mentions Rebecca's background, mentions the album's upcoming release, mentions and focuses on her new single "Crumbs" (not the album itself), and a quote by Black.
        • 5th - Mentions the album's upcoming release.
        • 6th - Mentions "Five of the most anticipated queer albums" by Charlie Grey. [2] (No information given there about the author).
  • This just goes through the first six, talking about her singles isn't the same as talking about her album. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now we are straying into WP:OSE. Your first example has a section about "Background and recording", and has articles for the singles involved to shift the focus to the album's overall content. Your second example has passing mentions of the singles used there with the main focus being about the album. Your third example of "Flowers" is mentioned only twice in the article with information geared towards the album itself. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't object to an article about Crumbs (Rebecca Black song). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be clear here, my opinion isn't to delete. Someone can and should userfy or draft this article until more comes out about her album, I mean why the rush? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The album has received coverage in a large number of news sources, including many known to WikiProject Albums to be reliable. Those news sources are providing significant coverage, covering the album beyond parroting a press release, especially the Paper and Uproxx articles. The article clearly establishes its subject's notability without needing to speculate unverifiaby. I don't think we would gain anything by moving its contents into Rebecca Black, and the article is very likely to have potential for expansion soon.
Project Termina (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There's already enough sourcing and the album isn't even out yet. I wish editors wouldn't waste the community's time with nominations like this. Sergecross73 msg me 01:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This clearly meets the WP:GNG Lightburst (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This album is anticipated and will get expanded such as the track listing and reception and performance so this should be kept — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinah5667 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Enough sourcing exists for the album to meet our notability guidelines. BD2412 is correct. Bruxton (talk) 14:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to delete just because she sang Friday and that it would be "embarrassing" to Wikipedia i'm pretty disappointed. Dinah5667 (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dinah5667 Personal attacks are not allowed and this is WP:NOTAFORUM. Bedivere (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dinah's comment was about the deficient reasoning in your nomination and was not a personal attack. Also, WP:NOTAFORUM very clearly says to keep discussions out of the main articles and do them on talk pages instead. This and all other AfD's are discussions in which the community builds consensus, so this IS a forum. You will have to accept the fact that people disagree with you. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrect. Dinah's comment falsely assumes me and the other delete voter are leading Wikipedia to an embarrassment because we supposedly want deletion "just because she sang Friday". While I do mention Friday in my nomination, it is only as context, and does not imply that is the reason for deletion. NOTAFORUM also means discussion should remain on topic. Making such comments (which they reiterated more personally on the article talk page, if you didn't see it) do not help at all. Regarding your last comment, it is unnecessary and out of place. Had you read my reply above to BD, you would not have said such a thing in the first place. Bedivere (talk) 04:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I could argue about whether I'm "incorrect", but this discussion should be about an album that is clearly notable, and your reactions to criticism aren't making your nomination any more logical. I'll sign off with a friendly recommendation to expand your perception of what a "forum" is. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just looking at the sources currently used, like Paper (magazine), DIY (magazine), Billboard (magazine), Rolling Stone (magazine), Entertainment Weekly, The Sydney Morning Herald, NME, and others, I'd say this is definitely notable enough to keep. I have to thoroughly disagree with the OP and Oaktree b who strangely dismissed Queerly and the Brooklyn Vegan, because they were "unsure" if they were unreliable sources, and dismissed the article entirely because there wasn't "any sort of critical discussion in RS that I recognize." Such a view is relatively limiting. I also have to disagree with the argument by Knowledgekid87 that this should be a redirect. I would say there is enough there for this to be a page at the present time. Otherwise, I have to agree with the other arguments in this discussion to keep this page.Historyday01 (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2023 (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/Let_Her_Burn&oldid=1133486325"