Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Tears Ricochet

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. Unanimous consensus to keep "My Tears Ricochet", "Epiphany". "Peace" and "TIMT" not unanimously !voted to be kept, but clearly no consensus to delete. Any future AFDs of these two should be done separately so they can be assessed on their own merits. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My Tears Ricochet[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)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

These four songs are from Taylor Swift's 2020 album Folklore. The album is a notable record, but these four songs are not. Per WP:NSONGS, If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created.

The only sources that are not album reviews in these articles are one unreliable self-published site ("PopSugar") and two primary sources ("tunebat" and "musicnotes.com"), and interpretations of primary sources are potentially WP:OR. If you install User:Headbomb/unreliable.js, you will see the PopSugar source being highlighted as unreliable. These four song articles should be merged or redirected to the album article Folklore. Ippantekina (talk) 04:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "My Tears Ricochet", no opinion on other three: I'm only giving my input on My Tears Ricochet as that is the article that I am familiar with and I'm not presently interested in judging the quality of the other three articles as it stands. While, yes, the article does not meet WP:NSONGS, I would argue it meets WP:GNG. Folklore, as an album, recieved quite a significant amount of coverage, and while not every track on it is necessarily notable, I would argue "My Tears Ricochet" is, as it has recieved significant coverage, even if that coverage is from album reviews of Folklore.

The article consists of about 789 words by my reckoning (excluding the lengthy Swift quote in the background and release section), and even assuming half of that would be unnecessary in the Folklore article, this still leaves nearly 400 words (394.5) of the article that would be merged into Folklore (as per WP:NSONGS, this material would be contained in the album article), to an area of the "Songs" section that currently consists of 67 words on "My Tears Ricochet". In my view, merging the articles would be unnecessary, and simply give undue weight to "My Tears Ricochet" to account for its notability. --LivelyRatification (talk) 06:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The background and reception sections are negligible -- reception of the song in the context of album reviews is redundant. Music and lyrics can be reasonably merged without fear of cluttering the Folklore article, which still has ample space for readable prose. 00:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Keep "My Tears Ricochet" and "Epiphany", Redirect "Peace", and Abstain on "This Is Me Trying" Keep "MTR" per above, and keep Epiphany because of these three sources showing that there is enough non-trivial sources for the song. There are not enough of these for "Peace".

Except for the Insider source (which covers the album, not this song), the other two do not mention "My Tears Ricochet" specifically anywhere. It is a documentary on the album making. Ippantekina (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are for "Epiphany". TheCartoonEditor (talk) (contribs) 13:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I refuse to comment on "TIMT" as I created the article, but I believe there are enough sources to have that page pass WP:GNG as well. TheCartoonEditor (talk) (contribs) 14:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The articles may meet GNG, but NSONGS is a more particular set of criteria for this specific category of popular music. Ippantekina (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NSONGS does not override GNG. Rlendog (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. All appear to meet GNG, with plenty of properly sourced song specific content. While most of the sources for "Peace" do discuss the song in the context of the album, the article on Folklore is already quite long, which makes a merger suboptimal. As for the use of PopSugar as a source in the "Peace" article, why not swap it out for the original Rolling Stone interview?--Tdl1060 (talk) 23:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The RS interview is about the album, and it is a primary source. Not that primary sources are unacceptable, but if the only significance is derived from interviews, then it is insignificant. Ippantekina (talk) 03:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not personally familiar with PopSugar, and cannot attest to its reliability one way or the other, but looking through the reliable sources noticeboard, there does not appear to be a consensus that it is unreliable. In that case, it would qualify as significant coverage in a secondary source about the song "Peace" itself. That being said, I would otherwise be fine with merging if Folklore's article size was not already ~~WP:TOOBIG~~ rather large. As it stands, the article's size is already at a level where ~~a split is recommended~~ WP:SIZERULE suggests the article "May need to be divided".--Tdl1060 (talk) 05:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC) Amended comments upon further evaluation.--Tdl1060 (talk) 06:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you install this script you will see PopSugar deprecated. Per SIZERULE Folklore's readable prose is still open to expansion (of course there needs work done) Ippantekina (talk) 07:14, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the RfC where it was deprecated? None of the times it was brought up at the reliable sources noticeboard was there a consensus that it was unreliable, though I will concede none of these discussions had significant participation. As such, PopSugar cannot be said to be deprecated on Wikipedia. As far as the length of Folklore's readable prose per SIZERULE is concerned, it is currently in the grey area where SIZERULE suggests it "May need to be divided". It would stay in that grey area with the merger of any one of these articles, but the merger of all four would almost certainly bring it past the point where SIZERULE recommends it "Probably should be divided".--Tdl1060 (talk) 08:16, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1) If a source is straight-up unreliable (no editorial oversight or self-published blog) then it is pretty straightforward. PopSugar is one such source; most likely the editor who creates the script decides so. 2) I said "there needs work done" if we cut down the "Commercial performance" section (WP:CHARTTRAJ) and scattered quotes throughout the article, it is possible. That is not to mention much of the "Critical reception" and "Impact and legacy" sections should be c/e'd (WP:RECEPTION) to avoid "A said, B said, C said" format. Ippantekina (talk) 10:33, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that one user "decides so", does not mean that the source is deprecated. I am not familiar enough with the site to attest to its reliability one way or the other, but if you feel that the source is in fact unreliable, this is an issue that you should raise at the reliable sources noticeboard, as PopSugar is used as a source in a lot more articles than the ones being discussed in this AfD. If what you say is true, and writers are able to publish articles without editorial oversight, then the source should be deprecated and it should not be used as a source. If however, there is editorial oversight, its use in these articles is perfectly acceptable.--Tdl1060 (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All. They meet WP:GNG per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 00:10, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All. All of the articles pass WP:GNG, plus Folklore is doing good in its current shape. Ronherry (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. This should have never been a bundled nomination. None of the examples given at WP:MULTIAFD fit this group of articles. While they are all songs on the same album, there is no overlap of content (beyond what's reasonable per WP:FORK) and there are no wider policy issues such as WP:HOAX or WP:SPAM. As such, we are having to evaluate each individual song against our notability guidelines independent of the others. Given that this creates a tangle for the closer and muddies the actual AFD conversation and process, this AFD should be closed for procedural reasons. No prejudice against speedy re-nomination of each individual song in non-multi AFDs.4meter4 (talk) 14:23, 15 December 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.