- 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. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 05:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Raining Men (Rihanna song) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Song fails the GNG as it does not have significant coverage in third-party sources. NSONG also notes, "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label... 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."
Let's take a quick look through the article:
- The "Recording and production" section is merely a prose rendering of the "Credits and personnel" section, which cites the parent album's liner notes. (Primary source.)
- "Conception and development" mostly cites interviews of the artists, Rihanna and Nicki Minaj (see bolded part of NSONG above). The other two sources merely verify that it was released to radio. A single release does not establish notability.
- "Composition" mostly cites reviews of the parent album Loud and the song's sheet music.
- All reviews in "Critical reception" are for the album. Nothing about the song individually.
- "Chart performance" is a prose rendering of the "Charts" section. NSONG states while charting "may" (emphasis not mine) make a song notable, "a standalone article should still satisfy the aforementioned criteria" detailed above.
- The "Live performances" section is based on one review of the Loud Tour.
With no non-trivial sources discussing the work outside of the context of an album or tour, this song fails notability guidelines and should not have an article. – Chase ( talk / contribs) 19:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. The song is a SINGLE. It received enough coverage from the reviews of the album, which is fine to use when reviewing a song in an article, it's used in nearly all of the singles, since as I have said before third, fourth, fifth etc singles don't get separate reviews apart from the album ones. It also have been performed over 90 times on Rihanna's concerts and charted. Also WP:GNG policy applies here. And stop being ridiculous, there was a discussion like this before. — Tomíca (T2ME) 20:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Please explain to me how this song meets the GNG when I explained clearly in the nomination how it doesn't (since it lacks significant coverage, which is defined as sources that include more than a passing mention of the subject). Also, not all singles are notable nor warrant inclusion in the encyclopedia. – Chase ( talk / contribs) 23:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - I'm not seeing the point to this nomination since the it's not a stub, It's actually well sourced and has even been played live more than once ... If this was a stub with 1 or even no sources then perhaps I'd understand ... but it's not.... – Davey2010 • (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- The problem is that the sources are either (a) about the album/tour/other things with the song only given passing mention, or (b) are self-interested parties (the artists) discussing the song in interviews, which NSONG says is excluded from the "non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label" criteria. Furthermore, stubs are not the only articles that need to be deleted (nor should all stubs be deleted, necessarily). The concern here is notability. – Chase ( talk / contribs) 23:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- I personally don't see any problems with the sources, I'll admit some could be better (ALOT better!) but on the whole well atleast IMHO they look fine. – Davey2010 • (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: I have moved the article to
Raining Men (song). Anyone who wishes to do so is quite welcome to create a dab page at "Raining Men (song)" after moving it back to the previous title (I can do that if admin buttons are needed), but the situation we previously had (of "Raining Men (song)" redirecting to "Raining Men (Rihanna song)") was just silly.
J Milburn (
talk)
23:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- That move was contrary to an RM discussion that just completed a few days ago – please see
Talk:Raining Men (Rihanna song). I have reverted it. Moving an article around while it is being discussed for deletion is also a problem. —
BarrelProof (
talk)
00:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- While I appreciate the fact that you did something towards dealing with the redirect/dab problem, there are now a large number of incoming links to a dabpage. I have changed the Rihanna songs template which will sort out most of them, but could you please do the rest, seeing as you create the dab?
J Milburn (
talk)
10:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think they are mostly fixed now. Some were indirect links due to another template, and it may take a bit of time for the template change to be reflected in the database. — BarrelProof ( talk) 19:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- While I appreciate the fact that you did something towards dealing with the redirect/dab problem, there are now a large number of incoming links to a dabpage. I have changed the Rihanna songs template which will sort out most of them, but could you please do the rest, seeing as you create the dab?
J Milburn (
talk)
10:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- That move was contrary to an RM discussion that just completed a few days ago – please see
Talk:Raining Men (Rihanna song). I have reverted it. Moving an article around while it is being discussed for deletion is also a problem. —
BarrelProof (
talk)
00:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Weak keepStrong Keep I'm going with keep on this one, first of all it was released and promoted as a single and I do see enough third party notability to warrant a separate article and on its own merits. Is it perfect? Certainly not, but it is not something that cannot stand on its own. — Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 07:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Keep while being a single does not in itself indicate notability, I did find some decent coverage outside of album reviews at Idolator, Spin, and Complex. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 07:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - Seriously @ Chasewc91:, what is wrong with you? Why are you being like this. This is a single release with third party sources throughout, this nomination goes against everything you have been saying over the notability talk page. This background section is third party explaining the concept and production process of the song between Rihanna and Minaj. How else are we supposed to know this unless Rihanna, Minaj, or other members of the team who made the song speak about it? It's idiotic. There is third party for live performances and for the numerous chartings. ALL song articles have a prose chart section, and then a table, so that point is irrelevant. Not all singles get 1000 single reviews, some singles get none; single reviews are becoming a thing of the past now because of the rise of the digital era and any song can garner critical or chart attention, so that point is irrelevant. Compositional info 9 times out of ten ALWAYS comes from the album reviews, for music articles on Wikipedia, and the music sheet is perfectly acceptable too. There is no rule saying you can't use just one source for live performances, either. Plus, there are 27 sources. Can't help that there isn't as much info as " S&M (song)" for example. You're on a raging vendetta and I have absolutely no idea why. You are not assuming WP:GOODFAITH by nominating such a vast amount of articles which pass GNG for deletion. I think senior editors and administrators need to assess your actions because you are getting out of control now. I'm actually lost for words. The whole "being a single does not necessarily establish notability" rule needs to be changed too. Being a single in itself asserts notability, because it has clearly been selected as being better than anything else on the album. — ₳aron 09:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 17:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 17:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. If the information was merged back into the album, we would have problems with WP:SIZE, now wouldn't we? BTW being a "single" does NOT infer notability. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 19:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- The composition, conception, and bits of the reception section that aren't already in the album article could easily be condensed and kept there. The rest isn't necessary. – Chase ( talk / contribs) 21:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 05:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Raining Men (Rihanna song) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Song fails the GNG as it does not have significant coverage in third-party sources. NSONG also notes, "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label... 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."
Let's take a quick look through the article:
- The "Recording and production" section is merely a prose rendering of the "Credits and personnel" section, which cites the parent album's liner notes. (Primary source.)
- "Conception and development" mostly cites interviews of the artists, Rihanna and Nicki Minaj (see bolded part of NSONG above). The other two sources merely verify that it was released to radio. A single release does not establish notability.
- "Composition" mostly cites reviews of the parent album Loud and the song's sheet music.
- All reviews in "Critical reception" are for the album. Nothing about the song individually.
- "Chart performance" is a prose rendering of the "Charts" section. NSONG states while charting "may" (emphasis not mine) make a song notable, "a standalone article should still satisfy the aforementioned criteria" detailed above.
- The "Live performances" section is based on one review of the Loud Tour.
With no non-trivial sources discussing the work outside of the context of an album or tour, this song fails notability guidelines and should not have an article. – Chase ( talk / contribs) 19:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. The song is a SINGLE. It received enough coverage from the reviews of the album, which is fine to use when reviewing a song in an article, it's used in nearly all of the singles, since as I have said before third, fourth, fifth etc singles don't get separate reviews apart from the album ones. It also have been performed over 90 times on Rihanna's concerts and charted. Also WP:GNG policy applies here. And stop being ridiculous, there was a discussion like this before. — Tomíca (T2ME) 20:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Please explain to me how this song meets the GNG when I explained clearly in the nomination how it doesn't (since it lacks significant coverage, which is defined as sources that include more than a passing mention of the subject). Also, not all singles are notable nor warrant inclusion in the encyclopedia. – Chase ( talk / contribs) 23:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - I'm not seeing the point to this nomination since the it's not a stub, It's actually well sourced and has even been played live more than once ... If this was a stub with 1 or even no sources then perhaps I'd understand ... but it's not.... – Davey2010 • (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- The problem is that the sources are either (a) about the album/tour/other things with the song only given passing mention, or (b) are self-interested parties (the artists) discussing the song in interviews, which NSONG says is excluded from the "non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label" criteria. Furthermore, stubs are not the only articles that need to be deleted (nor should all stubs be deleted, necessarily). The concern here is notability. – Chase ( talk / contribs) 23:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- I personally don't see any problems with the sources, I'll admit some could be better (ALOT better!) but on the whole well atleast IMHO they look fine. – Davey2010 • (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: I have moved the article to
Raining Men (song). Anyone who wishes to do so is quite welcome to create a dab page at "Raining Men (song)" after moving it back to the previous title (I can do that if admin buttons are needed), but the situation we previously had (of "Raining Men (song)" redirecting to "Raining Men (Rihanna song)") was just silly.
J Milburn (
talk)
23:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- That move was contrary to an RM discussion that just completed a few days ago – please see
Talk:Raining Men (Rihanna song). I have reverted it. Moving an article around while it is being discussed for deletion is also a problem. —
BarrelProof (
talk)
00:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- While I appreciate the fact that you did something towards dealing with the redirect/dab problem, there are now a large number of incoming links to a dabpage. I have changed the Rihanna songs template which will sort out most of them, but could you please do the rest, seeing as you create the dab?
J Milburn (
talk)
10:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think they are mostly fixed now. Some were indirect links due to another template, and it may take a bit of time for the template change to be reflected in the database. — BarrelProof ( talk) 19:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- While I appreciate the fact that you did something towards dealing with the redirect/dab problem, there are now a large number of incoming links to a dabpage. I have changed the Rihanna songs template which will sort out most of them, but could you please do the rest, seeing as you create the dab?
J Milburn (
talk)
10:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- That move was contrary to an RM discussion that just completed a few days ago – please see
Talk:Raining Men (Rihanna song). I have reverted it. Moving an article around while it is being discussed for deletion is also a problem. —
BarrelProof (
talk)
00:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Weak keepStrong Keep I'm going with keep on this one, first of all it was released and promoted as a single and I do see enough third party notability to warrant a separate article and on its own merits. Is it perfect? Certainly not, but it is not something that cannot stand on its own. — Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 07:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Keep while being a single does not in itself indicate notability, I did find some decent coverage outside of album reviews at Idolator, Spin, and Complex. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 07:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - Seriously @ Chasewc91:, what is wrong with you? Why are you being like this. This is a single release with third party sources throughout, this nomination goes against everything you have been saying over the notability talk page. This background section is third party explaining the concept and production process of the song between Rihanna and Minaj. How else are we supposed to know this unless Rihanna, Minaj, or other members of the team who made the song speak about it? It's idiotic. There is third party for live performances and for the numerous chartings. ALL song articles have a prose chart section, and then a table, so that point is irrelevant. Not all singles get 1000 single reviews, some singles get none; single reviews are becoming a thing of the past now because of the rise of the digital era and any song can garner critical or chart attention, so that point is irrelevant. Compositional info 9 times out of ten ALWAYS comes from the album reviews, for music articles on Wikipedia, and the music sheet is perfectly acceptable too. There is no rule saying you can't use just one source for live performances, either. Plus, there are 27 sources. Can't help that there isn't as much info as " S&M (song)" for example. You're on a raging vendetta and I have absolutely no idea why. You are not assuming WP:GOODFAITH by nominating such a vast amount of articles which pass GNG for deletion. I think senior editors and administrators need to assess your actions because you are getting out of control now. I'm actually lost for words. The whole "being a single does not necessarily establish notability" rule needs to be changed too. Being a single in itself asserts notability, because it has clearly been selected as being better than anything else on the album. — ₳aron 09:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 17:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica 1000 17:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. If the information was merged back into the album, we would have problems with WP:SIZE, now wouldn't we? BTW being a "single" does NOT infer notability. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 19:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- The composition, conception, and bits of the reception section that aren't already in the album article could easily be condensed and kept there. The rest isn't necessary. – Chase ( talk / contribs) 21:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- 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.