Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Little Things Give You Away (2nd nomination)

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 Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Little Things Give You Away[edit]

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

Skylar3214 believes this song should not have an article for the following reason: "It is not a single, neither it has been charted in all territories." I am starting this AfD as she does not seem to understand the phrase "Passes WP:GNG. Go to WP:AFD" and I do not want an edit war. (If it isn't already obvious, I say keep per WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO#C1.) Laun chba ller 20:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually a guy, not a girl. And no, two users and I think that it's unnecessary for you to have an article about "The Little Things Give You Away". It will stay redirected, and that's my final decision. User:Skylar3214 2:17, 26 June 2014

It's not your decision to make. The decision is up to consensus. ~~I'm not reverting your redirection because that would be edit warring.~~ Okay, having seen the talk page, I am, because you are incredibly mistaken. I am going to revert and I am going to WP:RFPP.--Laun chba ller 21:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one who talked about this. Tell that to the two users on its talk page. And yes, you keep reverting my edits, and you don't tell me that it's not my decision to make. Let me make my own decisions, you don't make 'em for me. It will be deleted by another user, if you keep this up with your actions towards me. User:Skylar3214 3:09, 26 June 2014

Neither of those two editors are here any more, because the discussion was seven years ago, and they were discussing a different state of the article which was quite rightly deleted. WP:Consensus can change. I'm going up to bed now and whatever happens while I'm asleep happens. Cwmhiraeth, BlueMoonset, Yoninah and 97198, you all participated in the DYK nomination - your thoughts are welcome.--Laun chba ller 22:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care about what you say. It will be deleted by somebody else, and that's final! Now, this is the final straw, thanks to you and your smart mouth. User:Skylar3214 3:36, 26 June 2014

Comment@Skylar, it is not up to you whether this article is deleted or redirected. It is a matter for community consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLongTone (talk • contribs)

THANK you! He thinks a consensus formed seven years ago and discussing a different article still stands.--Laun chba ller 23:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge/Redirect - Fails the WP:GNG, WP:NSONGS. It doesn't have significant coverage, it just has some random statements cherry-picked out of some album views. Some of the reviews aren't even reliable, like the Sputnik a Music one, which is user-generated and fails WP:SPS. Is be okay with a redirect, but realistically, if it hasn't met the GNG in the last 7 years, I'm not sure how it's ever going to happen for this random, non-single track. Sergecross73 msg me 00:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mentioned in passing on AllFail, as I would expect, but singled out, if you excuse the phrase, in Rolling Stone. I have seen worse coverage for albums, kept, and this is only a single. Who cares about the Sputnik coverage, that is only required to verify the statements; Rolling Stone provides the notability.
Someone in authority do to Skylar whatever it is authority does to noobish brats that need a spanking. Ok, that was not 100% helpful. Let me try again. Skylar, "you are not the boss of me" is not a statement you or anyone else will ever need to make on Wikipedia, because people either use rules and rationales to back up their statements, or you do not have to listen to them. You are free to decide which, but if you decide wrongly, as you have here, you will find yourself ignored instead. Anarchangel (talk) 01:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Stones only has a single sentence of the song. That's pretty much the definition of a passing mention, not significant coverage. The rest of your argument falls I to WP:OTHERSTUFF territory, and AFD is not the place for grievances on editors. Sergecross73 msg me 01:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - "(1) On Minutes to Midnight, co-produced by Rick Rubin, Linkin Park are more of something else — topical — and furiously good at it. (2) In the last song, 'The Little Things Give You Away,' the band coolly torpedoes George W. Bush's petty, disastrous arrogance on Iraq and New Orleans (for starters), building from acoustic strum and soft-shoe electronics to magisterial Seventies-arena guitar and lacerating disgust. (3) 'All you've ever wanted was someone to truly look up to you,' Chester Bennington sings. (4) 'And six feet underwater/I do.'"
  - That's four sentences, in which they use the song to define the album and the current trajectory of the band's career (the preceding sentences lead up to this one, talking about the previous sound the band was getting, but I did not want to be greedy and count those opening sentences as pertaining to the song directly). And they quote the song. Anarchangel (talk) 02:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. That is not "four sentences of coverage". I numbered the sentences above. Sentence one is obviously about the album in general, not the song. Sentence 3 and 4 are literally direct quotes of the songs lyrics, and nothing else. To claim that consistutes as significant coverage, or "four sentences about the song", is absolutely crap. Direct quoting lyrics, and generalizations about the entire album, doesnot count as significant, third pary commentary on the song. Sergecross73 msg me 02:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - The key word in the first sentence is "topical", which relates to the content of the song. And the third and fourth sentences are indeed direct quotes of the song, as I said. It is your assertion, and nothing else, that that does not constitute significant coverage. It is my assertion that the journalist felt the song lyrics made a point better (more succinctly, perhaps) than they could themselves. Similar to the way that a picture is worth a thousand words. Anarchangel (talk) 03:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Objectively, the GNG does not allow for direct quotes of lyrics to count as third party coverage. It's not third party by definition. Outside of that, you're left with one sentence about the song, and one about the album as a whole. Say what you will about subjectivity, precedent does not back such a scenario as significant coverage. The article is very short. What little is there can easily be integrated into the album article, if it's not already there to begin with... Sergecross73 msg me 03:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any significant coverage here, nothing that passes WP:NSONG (such as significant charting). Яehevkor ✉ 08:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the album. I fail to see the significant coverage about this song that would establish independent notability. Arguing the number of sentences in the Rolling Stone article is pointless as regardless of whether it is 1 or 4 sentences, it is still a passing mention (i.e. not significant coverage) about the song that is contained within a review of the album. -- Whpq (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I bothered is that I've seen people successfully argue that a paragraph could be used towards it being significant coverage, but never a mere sentence. Wanted to make sure the source wasn't being misrepresented. Sergecross73 msg me 18:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still agree that this article will be redirected or deleted in any case, and therefore, I will not argue about this with anybody else anymore. What's done is done. User:Skylar3214 5:17, 28 June 2014

It helps the closing Admin if you add a bolded "Redirect" somewhere in the statement, FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 01:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. User:Skylar3214 7:44, 28 June 2014

Redirect to Minutes to Midnight (album) - As much as I love Linkin Park this song doesn't seemed to have charted anywhere, and would generally say it's a non notable song. –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! A good ol' redirect or delete will hopefully clear things up. User:Skylar3214 12:26, 29 June 2014

Merge to Minutes to Midnight (album). As ashamed as I am to say it, edits by Sergecross73 took this to below the level of passing WP:GNG.--Laun chba ller 09:43, 4 July 2014 (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.