Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Treacherous (song) (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 (non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Treacherous (song)[edit]

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

A WP:CFORK that doesn't warrant a separate article per WP:NSONGS due to lack of third-party coverage outside of album reviews. Should be deleted or redirected to its album MaranoFan (talk) 09:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 11:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Undecided~~ Not really sure how an article about a standalone song could be a CFORK of anything. That said: the article does meet WP:NSONGS (1) by charting on significant charts in the US and Canada. However, that seems to be the extent of its notability; I can't really find any coverage of it. From the previous AfD, we have 1 and 2, and a broken link. But that's it. As big as Taylor Swift is, the song should have more coverage, and maybe it does. But I'm not seeing it. If someone else can find some sources to help push it over GNG I'll swing to a keep; failing that, it's borderline. Meeting NSONGS helps it, but that can't be the only reason to keep. Deadbeef 15:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to redirect to Red (Taylor Swift album). The sources just aren't there but it might make a plausible redirect. Deadbeef 19:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't believe anything has changed from last year's attempt to delete this article. The song charted and has enough coverage to pass NSONGS. -- Calidum 17:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Calidum: can you point out what coverage you're seeing? I'd think that it should be notable enough to pass but I'm not seeing the coverage in WP:RS's that I was expecting. Deadbeef 17:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources are album reviews, and the article is still a stub. The chart info is already in Swift's discography. Also, just the fact that"nothing has changed" since the last time is not a valid keep argument, but highlights that the stub has in fact not grown since the last DN.--MaranoFan (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with / redirect to Red (Taylor Swift album). Standalone article is unnecessary, and the song appears to fail the GNG by lacking significant coverage outside of its parent album. –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The nominator, MaranoFan, closed this discussion and chose to redirect the article to Red (Taylor Swift album) before the AfD ran a full seven days, when there has clearly not been enough discussion and there was not unanimous support for the decision. This is a clear violation of WP:NACD and I have thus reverted the early closure. –Chase (talk / contribs) 06:10, 24 December 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.