Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outta My Head (Leona Lewis 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 Subject clearly meets at least two criteria of WP:NSONGS. Non-admin closure. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outta My Head (Leona Lewis song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and fails WP:NSONG. One might think that the 1st criteria of NSONG is met here as the subject song has so many reviews. But note that the song on it's own doesn't have any of its standalone reviews, but are all of the complete album. Adding to it, the song has not been on any significant charts and not been a recipient of any significant award too. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "Outta My Head" is not a single, so standalone reviews are, quite obviously, not available. It comes from album reviews, which are, according to WP:NSONG, " the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." (Not even singles are subject to getting standalone reviews anymore). It doesn't matter if a song charts for one week at number 200 in South Korea or is number one on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart for 6 months, a chart is a chart. We do not decide which countries and their charts are more important than other, that undermines the whole point of charts. Furthermore, charting is not a requirement to create a song article. It doesn't matter if this song has received an award or not, it doesn't have to have had one. You've made a fool of yourself by nominating this, as I have proven:

Songs and singles may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria:

Has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. 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.[3] Y
Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts.[under discussion]Y
Has won one or more significant awards or honors. It's not a single, so it would not get an award. Not even singles necessarily get awards, rightly or wrongly.
Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups. As I said, it's not a single, so the chances of it being covered are very small.

WP:NSONG states that one must be met, and it meets two, perfectly. — AARON • ^TALK 11:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The song has charted and has enough information to have an article. I don't see the point in "it doesn't have standalone reviews", most of the singles which are hits don't have that too or have few. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 12:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment, I'm on the fence with this one. Come Alive (Leona Lewis song) at time of deletion (see here was more detailed than this article but had not charted hence it was ultimately merged as it was decided that the song had not received enough coverage that focussed specifically on the song, independent of the album. On that basis I'd say "Outta My Head" should be redirected and merged into Echo. Its then a question of whether the song's position at number 98 on the Slovakian airplay chart makes up for the lack of detail or independent coverage. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 13:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Charting isn't a requirement, and a national chart is fine. I still think "Come Alive" should have been kept. It's a bit contradictory for you to say that considering you wanted to keep that article too. Considering that it wasn't a single, a lot of critics wrote about it and compared it to other singers work. There's not a lack of info here, it's relevant to the song. I think you will find that if you remove the generic Background section from "Come Alive", then both articles are actually about the same length, so I dno't know why you are saying it was considerably larger and detailed. Lots of articles are shorter than this yet no one notices. — AARON • ^TALK 14:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

actually "Come Alive" was performed in promotion of the album numerous times and received a lot of coverage regarding its performances, Leona also spoke about the creation and inspiration of the song, something which has not happened with this song. On the basis that the community decided "Come Alive" should be deleted, this should be redirected and merged. Let me ask you this question, if "Outta My Head" had not charted, would you have created the article (honestly)? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 09:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Come Alive" had two production paragraphs and one critic paragraph; "Outta My Head" has one composition paragraph and two critic paragraphs.. They aren't that indifferent. I had wanted to do this article for ages, but yes the fact it charted did sway it for me because I knew what types of people there are on who ignore WP:NSONG despite this article passing. In all honesty, "Come Alive" passed it too with the first point of the criteria, and I fully supported keeping it. — AARON • ^TALK 09:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to album article. Fails WP:NSONG. Pretty much all references are about the album, not the song. It's almost identical to the Come Alive case. -Zanhe (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It does not fail, it's meets 2 points out of 4 as I have shown above, and only one is needed. Explain yourself. All points are about the song as part. Not even singles get single reviews much anymore. This passes WP:NSONG. — AARON • ^TALK 21:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge to the album. While I see no reason why an album track shouldn't have an article if there is sufficient encyclopedic content to justify it (I feel this is a far more sensible criterion than whether it passes WP:GNG), I'm not convinced that that's the case here. Take out the duplication both within the article and with the album article, and the brief mentions in album reviews that have been dressed up a bit in the reception section, and the content is verging on low enough to be concisely summarized in the album article. --Michig (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The mentions aren't brief though, and it's not dressed up. It passes WP:NSONG. — AARON • ^TALK 21:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If they were any briefer, they'd be non-existent. --Michig (talk) 21:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Songs reviews as part of an album review aren't usually paragraphs each. A fair amount of critics spoke about the song, I've seen cases of a lot less. It passes WP:NSONG, I've proven it above, so I don't see how people can argue against it. — AARON • ^TALK 21:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NSONG. The song's reviews as part of the album are still reviews, which is accepted as an independent published work. WikiRedactor (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep J 1982 (talk) 22:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:SONG. — Diva Knockouts 23:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NSONG HĐ (talk) 04:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close let's not spoil the DYK nom for this article. No problems at all. So long as it passes general notability guidelines, (which it clearly does), all the other notability guidelines can be ignored. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:SONG. —→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→
Keep per Aaron.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 22:36, 18 May 2013 (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.