Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D.S. (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 keep. Somebody needs to prune down the album references in the article, but it is otherwise a notable song. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

D.S. (song)

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

Multiple reasons. First, fails WP:NSONGS: it never charted, never won an award, and has not been covered by multiple notable artists. In an effort to compensate for this, the article has been written to appear as if it has sources. Unfortunately, it does not. It is kind of a strange WP:COATRACK for covering the molestation charges against Jackson. As the article itself states, "The vast majority of mainstream music reviewers did not provide a critical analysis of "D.S." in their reviews of HIStory and any analysis only covered the connection to Tom Sneddon and the song's genre." The "Background" section of this article serves as a recap of the molestation trial. When it comes to "Themes and Genre", the opening sentence is WP:OR: the cited source for ""D.S." has very similar themes to the rest of HIStory, creating an atmosphere of paranoia." is http://www.allmusic.com/album/r216079, which doesn't mention the song except in a tracklisting. The rest of the section is devoted to the album, not the song. Most of "Other works and aftermath" section doesn't use sources that refers to this song, merely pointing out that Jackson made other works that referred to the case. One source does mention the song being sung by protesters (http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2005/jun/13/michaeljackson.michaeljacksontrial5) but it's hard to consider that particularly reliable since it can't even get the lyrics to the song right. There are sources that cover the apparent reference to Thomas W. Sneddon, Jr., but none of those sources contain confirmation from Jackson, which raises BLP issues (in fairness, I'm not certain what level of sourcing we actually need to avoid BLP problems). —Kww(talk) 03:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding my deletion argument, as it is apparent that some didn't follow the one I presented:

The material in "Background" is basically a summary of 1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson. Sourced? Yes. About this song? No. Completely redundant to existing articles? Yes.
The material in "Themes and genre" is WP:OR. http://www.allmusic.com/album/r216079 only mentions this song in a tracklist. I can't evaluate http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/michaeljackson/albums/album/312830/review/5943497/history_past_present_and_future_book_1 , but the sourced statement is about three other songs on the album, not this one. These two sources are again used to describe "Stranger in Moscow", another song in the album. Remaining material is about the lyrics of the song, with only one external source used (which doesn't get the lyrics right).
"Critical reaction" starts with the list of awards the album won, not the song. It continues:"The vast majority of mainstream music reviewers did not provide a critical analysis of "D.S." in their reviews of HIStory and any analysis only covered the connection to Tom Sneddon and the song's genre." We do get one one-line review of the song, but it is from a dead link: http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=0F51AE3C3455B8D7&p_docnum=1 so we cannot evaluate how thoroughly it discussed the topic.
"Other works and aftermath" is primarily devoted to "other works", but continues to describe the trial again. It then proceeds to make extremely POV claims about Sneddon, triggering BLP concerns. The reference to the song is that protesters sung it.
In short, the unique information in this article is "D.S. is a song that is usually interpreted as a reference to Thomas W. Sneddon, and was sung by protestors at the conclusion of People v. Jackson." The rest is either redundant information about the album, redundant information about the trial, or BLP-worrisome information about Tom Sneddon.—Kww(talk) 17:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily or strong keep. Pass WP:GNG, as simple as it is a good article. NSONGS is a subrule of the WP:N, so how can pass N if it cannot pass NSONGS? Just because it didn't chart nor have a cover, does not mean it is not a good article. This article is being considerate for deletion because I commented him about this article, if not, it wouldn't be at AFD again. I intended to comment Speechless failed NSONGS and it managed to be a Featured article, now pass it because it has a cover, but the point is that NSONGS is one of the rules which can be ignored. Tbhotch^Talk and C. 03:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - On the basis of WP:NSONGS stating "Unreleased material are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Candy o32 - Happy New Year :) 03:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That section of NSONGS is in reference to albums, not songs. Why would the discussion of unreleased albums be applicable to a released album track?—Kww(talk) 04:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Plenty of the material in here is indeed about the song. I don't see any particular part that qualifies as coatracking. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the more detailed analysis I have provided above.—Kww(talk) 17:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that this article strays a little too far from the subject of the song, particularly in the "Background" section, but that does not negate the fact that this song, despite not charting or even being released as a single, has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. For starters, references 4, 17, and 18 are independent of both the subject and each other, and have significant content about the song, not the album as a whole. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those three sources source one fact: the song makes reference to Tom Sneddon, which could be neatly fit into the parent album article (where this belongs, per WP:NSONGS). Note that the three sources can't even agree what the lyrics to the song are at the point it is supposed to make reference to Mr. Sneddon.—Kww(talk) 15:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you didn't look at the background, the Themes, critical reception, and the first paragraph of the other works section are very heavy and could not be presented just in the album's page. Songs like this and Freakum Dress that get overwhelming coverage meet notability although they didn't chart. Candy o32 - Happy New Year :) 16:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note User no notified by nominator I recently did it Tbhotch^Talk and C. 23:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There probably is too much material about the album in the article, but also plenty of reliably sourced material about the song itself. For example, in the "Themes and genre" section, except for the next to last sentence, the 2nd paragraph is entirely about the song, not the album, and the beginning and end of the 1st paragraph are about the song as well. And reliably sourced material about the Sneddon connection counts too. Rlendog (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2011 (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.