Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cowboy like Me

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 to Evermore (Taylor Swift album). Both songs have received the majority of their coverage as part of the album, and so don't currently stand on their own; the info should be merged into the album article. -- Aervanath (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cowboy like Me

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

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

This song article fails WP:NSONGS. Sources used in this article are album reviews. Two sources (TuneBat and Musicnotes are primary sources, and interpretations of primary sources are potentially WP:OR. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created. I suggest this article be redirected to Evermore (Taylor Swift album). Ippantekina (talk) 03:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: For the same reason, I propose Ivy (Taylor Swift song) for deletion (or merge or redirect). Sources in this article are limited to album reviews, and per NSONGS album reviews do not establish notability. Ippantekina (talk) 03:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Cowboy like Me", no opinion on "Ivy": I am cribbing/copying quite heavily from a similar argument I've made in regards to My Tears Ricochet because, at least in my view, these are two sides of the same coin in this instance, and I have similar opinions on both of their nominations - I'm also not giving my input on Ivy for similar reasons - Cowboy like Me is the article that I am familiar with and I'm not presently interested in judging the quality of Ivy at the moment.

Yes, "Cowboy like Me" does not meet WP:NSONGS - the majority of its coverage is established from reviews of Evermore, but I would argue it meets WP:GNG. Evermore, as an album, recieved quite a significant amount of coverage, and while not every track on it is necessarily notable, I would argue "Cowboy like Me" is, as it has recieved significant coverage, even if that coverage is from album reviews of Evermore.

The article consists of about 712 words by my reckoning, and even assuming half of that would be unnecessary in the Folklore article, this still leaves 356 words of the article that would be merged into Evermore (as per WP:NSONGS, some of this material would be contained in the album article), to an area of the "Songs" section that currently consists of 52 words on "Cowboy like Me". In my view, merging the articles would be unnecessary, and simply give undue weight to "Cowboy like Me" to account for its notability. --LivelyRatification (talk) 06:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You acknowledge that "Cowboy like Me" does not meet NSONGS. I will break down the article:

"Background and release": can be reasonably merged into Evermore;

"Composition and lyrics": can be reasonably merged into Evermore (the musicnotes.com or tubenet sources are primary sources);

"Reception": negligible. This consists of all album reviews;

"Charts": can be seen at Taylor Swift singles discography#Other charted songs.

So this article can be reasonably merged without fear of cluttering the Evermore article. Quantity over quality. Ippantekina (talk) 08:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 11:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both. They meet WP:GNG per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 00:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Ivy" now qualifies the notability criteria on WP:NSONGS too following its feature on Dickinson, generating mutiple sources on the Internet. Highlighting this only because Ippantenkina stated they believed this song doesn't need an article because it didn't pass NSONGS. In my opinion, passing WP:GNG is enough to warrant an article. But now that it passes both, there shouldn't be an issue. Ronherry (talk) 14:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both articles are essentially WP:FANCRUFT. Very little in the way of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject so fails WP:GNG. Just charting is not enough for these two songs as most Taylor Swift songs will do that these days. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because both are viable search times, redirecting them to Evermore (Taylor Swift album) would be more appropriate. Ippantekina (talk) 08:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That too makes sense! Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist for futher input to establish a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Doesn't look like they meet WP:NSONGS to me. Popcornfud (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Evermore (Taylor Swift album) as there does not appear to be significant coverage from third-party, reliable sources on this specific song. As the nominator has already noted, these songs are discussed in album reviews, but further (and more specific) coverage would be necessary to support either of these two songs having their own articles. They are both viable search terms so I believe a redirect would be preferable over outright deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 06:03, 9 January 2022 (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.