Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shooting Star (Owl City song)
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. MBisanz talk 00:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shooting Star (Owl City song)[edit]
- Shooting Star (Owl City song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The song has not been released yet. There's only talk about being released as a single later this year. Devin (talk) 00:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Query - from the article - "It was released as the lead single from the EP on May 15, 2012" - so the song has been released but I think the film clip has not. Yeah? Stalwart111 (talk) 01:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I was given this article. The article, that was written on October 3, 2012, says that Adam is considering "Shooting Star" to be the next single off of The Midsummer Station. The song has been released in an EP and in an album, but it's not yet been released as a single. Devin (talk) 03:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I get you. Strange wording perhaps. Thanks for clearing that up and for the link. Am leaning towards delete. There's not much there to establish notability now and no guarantee that it will be released in the future (the article you provide suggests it might be but this is basically a rumour or a guess, so WP:BALL #5). Doesn't seem to meet WP:NSONG and no guarantee it will any time in the very near future (unless it's released tomorrow to coincide with the start of their new tour... but that would also be WP:CRYSTAL.). Stalwart111 (talk) 03:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I was given this article. The article, that was written on October 3, 2012, says that Adam is considering "Shooting Star" to be the next single off of The Midsummer Station. The song has been released in an EP and in an album, but it's not yet been released as a single. Devin (talk) 03:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keepMerge to Shooting Star (EP). - this is not helped by the fact the EP and the track have the same name! However, there is a tiny amount of significant online coverage about the track - one is identified by Devin above. MTV have also said something about it here.WP:NMUSIC#Recordings requires significant coverage, and this track probably tips towards 'notability'.Sionk (talk) 10:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Having re-read the MTV and Billboard sources, I'm now of the opinion that they don't offer enough new information about the track to make the article into much more than a track listing. Its charting (in the very upper reaches of the UK chart) and potential future realease can be mentioned in Shooting Star (EP). Sionk (talk) 11:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Shooting Star (EP). There's a lack of coverage of this track, and generally you merge/redirect to album or EP in such cases, assuming they are notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Charted and therefore notable. It has also been released as a digital download so the nomination is incorrect in stating that "The song has not been released yet". Apparently the Christian market and the UK don't count for where songs may be released in the nominator's mind. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Response and comment only. Familiarity with WP:NSONGS is necessary, it says, Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. This song may have charted, but certainly not "ranked on a national or significant music chart" and there certainly isn't at present enough veriafiable for a reasonably detailed article, at present it is purely discography entry dressed up as an article. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain how the official UK singles chart is not national, nor significant? Ironholds (talk) 11:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Easy. Is number 176 in any chart actually notable? Does No 176 in any chart actually generate enough information to create a song article? Is the article about a song or a single? Is the entry actually an encyclopedic entry or is it a discography entry? Finally many song articles have been deleted/merged on notability grounds for songs that achieved much higher charting than 176. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those hypothetical questions actually answer my initial query, which was "can you explain how the chart" is not national or significant, not "can you explain how the position" does not lend itself to significance. Ironholds (talk) 12:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You are arguing semantics which is unnecessary as I have not expressed any !vote in the matter. Your time would have been spent much better addressing the points I have raised in the article, if you think I have raised valid points. If you disagree with me, that's fine too. If you disagree with WP:NSONGS that's a different matter altogether. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't disagree with WP:NSONGS, which discusses the importance of charts, not the relative position of a song on those charts. This is what I am trying to communicate to you :). The fact that you have not !voted does not make discussing this irrelevant - it means that discussing this is not necessary to "win", sure, but I consider a win to be "talking through the rationale and trying to work out who is wrong or right to better inform future discussions". Ironholds (talk) 13:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In which case you should be aware of the first two words of NSONGS... "Most songs." If we drop down to 176 (irrespective of which chart) then we are saying "Anything that has charted is notable." which is not what NSONGS says. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, it also says "songs that have charted....are probably notable", but I think at this point it's clear we're talking past each other and not getting anywhere. Ironholds (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it says "probably notable," not are notable, therefore the other parts of NSONGS kick in. Awards? Independent coverage? Can it be more than a stub? Presently the article is a discography entry, it tells nobody anything about "the song!" --Richhoncho (talk) 14:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, it also says "songs that have charted....are probably notable", but I think at this point it's clear we're talking past each other and not getting anywhere. Ironholds (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In which case you should be aware of the first two words of NSONGS... "Most songs." If we drop down to 176 (irrespective of which chart) then we are saying "Anything that has charted is notable." which is not what NSONGS says. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't disagree with WP:NSONGS, which discusses the importance of charts, not the relative position of a song on those charts. This is what I am trying to communicate to you :). The fact that you have not !voted does not make discussing this irrelevant - it means that discussing this is not necessary to "win", sure, but I consider a win to be "talking through the rationale and trying to work out who is wrong or right to better inform future discussions". Ironholds (talk) 13:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You are arguing semantics which is unnecessary as I have not expressed any !vote in the matter. Your time would have been spent much better addressing the points I have raised in the article, if you think I have raised valid points. If you disagree with me, that's fine too. If you disagree with WP:NSONGS that's a different matter altogether. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those hypothetical questions actually answer my initial query, which was "can you explain how the chart" is not national or significant, not "can you explain how the position" does not lend itself to significance. Ironholds (talk) 12:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Easy. Is number 176 in any chart actually notable? Does No 176 in any chart actually generate enough information to create a song article? Is the article about a song or a single? Is the entry actually an encyclopedic entry or is it a discography entry? Finally many song articles have been deleted/merged on notability grounds for songs that achieved much higher charting than 176. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain how the official UK singles chart is not national, nor significant? Ironholds (talk) 11:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Response and comment only. Familiarity with WP:NSONGS is necessary, it says, Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. This song may have charted, but certainly not "ranked on a national or significant music chart" and there certainly isn't at present enough veriafiable for a reasonably detailed article, at present it is purely discography entry dressed up as an article. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Billboard's US Christian Songs is notable and it reached No. 36. Therefore notable. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not going to get into discussion if a particular chart is notable, but your words remind me greatly of WP:NOTINHERITED. Assuming that No 36 in the chart is notable, then why can't there be more information about the song? If there can't be, then the article must be a permanent stub, so deletion/merging according to WP:NSONGS would be the correct action to take. I think I understand that you and Ironholds think the article should be saved, what I am not understanding is "Why?" - I'd like to see a well-written article on this song where I and every other reader can learn something about this song. All we have at the moment is that it charted in 2 different charts - if that's all a song article meant to be we might as well delete all song articles and copy the charts because song articles are now irrelevant. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I believe enough material exists to satisfy WP:NSONGS and build a "reasonably detailed article". Sections on the song's background (e.g., originally written "four years ago" but didn't make the cut for Ocean Eyes; he finally presented a 90-second demo of the "old leftover instrumental idea" to Stargate; etc.) and music video can be created. And as far as the charts go, the song peaked at number 49 on the Japan Hot 100. The combination of coverage in reliable sources (MTV and Billboard) and chart info is enough to put me in the keep camp.
- Other, less significant items (in terms of depth) can also be incorporated. This JesusFreakHideout review: while it is about the EP overall, approximately 130 words discuss the song, and that's better than a passing mention, at least. And there's a tidbit that "Shooting Star" was intended to be the first single from The Midsummer Station until the success of Call Me Maybe led to Owl City's management choosing the duet "Good Time" instead. Gongshow Talk 08:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Thanks to Gongshow. You understood what I was saying. WP is a little more than a repository of discography entries. I note there's something in the links you gave that helps fill out "about the song" bit of a song article. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Other, less significant items (in terms of depth) can also be incorporated. This JesusFreakHideout review: while it is about the EP overall, approximately 130 words discuss the song, and that's better than a passing mention, at least. And there's a tidbit that "Shooting Star" was intended to be the first single from The Midsummer Station until the success of Call Me Maybe led to Owl City's management choosing the duet "Good Time" instead. Gongshow Talk 08:59, 22 October 2012 (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.