Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devil is a Loser
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Devil is a Loser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Appears to be a non-notable song by the band Lordi. This was a contested prod, which was removed with the note: "Notability is most certainly asserted -- one of five songs to be made into a music video by the first Finnish winner of Eurovision, who won with a record number of points." Making a music video does not make a song pass Wikipedia's notability requirements. The band does have a notable song, Hard Rock Hallelujah, which won the Eurovision Song Contest 2006, but this notability does not carry over to their other songs. — coelacan talk — 01:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Very important song from very important band. Again, I can come up with a dozen song entries on Wikipedia from international bands whose songs reached their contries' charts but didn't make it to America. Rockstar915 02:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please demonstrate that the song fulfills wp:notability. It doesn't matter whether it made it to America or Zimbabwe. Just show that it passes our notability requirements. That's the very important thing here. — coelacan talk — 04:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Song has been discussed in several reliable sources including NYT, BBC, BBC again, and The London Institute for Contemporary Christianity. JulesH 14:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Discussed in, yes (very briefly in each, for a single sentence). But not the primary topic of, which is the notability requirement. WP:N is not fulfilled yet by these passing mentions. — coelacan talk — 09:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is your subjective interpretation. Nowhere in WP:N does it state that the article's subject is required to be the primary topic of a given reliable source. Besides which, WP:N describes notability guidelines, not requirements - the distinction is important. AdorableRuffian 20:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It has to be non-trivial coverage. ""Non-triviality" is an evaluation of the depth of content contained in the published work, exclusive of mere directory entry information, and of how directly it addresses the subject." This is widely regarded to mean the subject of the article is the primary subject of the coverage. That is exactly what WP:BIO says, for example, but only to make it clearer. Specifically, WP:N does say that it must be the subject. In a newspaper piece about Lordi, the band is the subject of the article. It's possible for there to be more than one subject, I'll grant, but that is not the case in any coverage yet presented here. All the coverage has been nothing more than passing mentions of the song. And "a guideline" does not mean "something we can pretend doesn't exist". Notability is required, it is part of policy. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Problem articles where deletion may be needed, non-notability is one of those things that requires deletion. — coelacan talk — 12:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- An absolutely literal interpretation of that phrase in WP:N is nonsensical, as it would exclude almost all sources. If "the primary subject" is what is meant it should say so; I prefer to interpret it as "a subject". See my comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood Red Sandman. Ultimately, I don't see the point in nit-picking over semantics on a page which isn't cast-iron policy anyway (and even policy pages are open to interpretation). The whole point of AfD discussion is to answer the question "Should this article be on Wikipedia" - it is fundamentally just a clash of opinions in a bid to achieve consensus. References to guideline pages may bolster arguments, but they are not arguments in and of themselves. AdorableRuffian 18:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It has to be non-trivial coverage. ""Non-triviality" is an evaluation of the depth of content contained in the published work, exclusive of mere directory entry information, and of how directly it addresses the subject." This is widely regarded to mean the subject of the article is the primary subject of the coverage. That is exactly what WP:BIO says, for example, but only to make it clearer. Specifically, WP:N does say that it must be the subject. In a newspaper piece about Lordi, the band is the subject of the article. It's possible for there to be more than one subject, I'll grant, but that is not the case in any coverage yet presented here. All the coverage has been nothing more than passing mentions of the song. And "a guideline" does not mean "something we can pretend doesn't exist". Notability is required, it is part of policy. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Problem articles where deletion may be needed, non-notability is one of those things that requires deletion. — coelacan talk — 12:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is your subjective interpretation. Nowhere in WP:N does it state that the article's subject is required to be the primary topic of a given reliable source. Besides which, WP:N describes notability guidelines, not requirements - the distinction is important. AdorableRuffian 20:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Discussed in, yes (very briefly in each, for a single sentence). But not the primary topic of, which is the notability requirement. WP:N is not fulfilled yet by these passing mentions. — coelacan talk — 09:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep
DeleteThe references cited by JulesH only make a passing reference to the song, and it is not a primary subject, so the article do not support notability for the song, only for the band, per WP:RS. H(edited to add) However I found [1] which shows it reached #9 on the Finland top 20, and #10 on the World Modern Rock Top 30 Singles. Adding this ref to the article. Appears to satisfy WP:MUSIC.Inkpaduta 17:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]- But that is a criterion concerning bands. They would be notable from a top single. That doesn't mean that the single itself is so notable to have its own article. I've never questioned the notability of Lordi here, their chart success would establish that if so many articles didn't already. But the song still doesn't have sourcing for its own independent notability. — coelacan talk — 09:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Major chart hit by notable band. Backed up by reliable sources; meets WP:N by any reasonable interpretation. See my comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Who's Your Daddy? (song) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood Red Sandman. In my view, articles like this one should be speedy keeps - deleting articles about top 10 hit singles by notable bands is not what AfD should be about. AdorableRuffian 20:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's pretty clear that AFD should be "about" deleting articles that don't need to be separate articles. There's still not enough content here from reliable sources to merit writing an article separate from the Get Heavy article or the Lordi article. — coelacan talk — 12:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with your conclusion here. Many articles do not absolutely need to be separate articles, but there is still some intrinsic value in keeping them separate. A song article, for example, allows the addition of various categories and a Singles infobox which would otherwise clutter up a band or album article. As I said in one of your other AfDs, a reasonable stub article is fine - it doesn't have to be War and Peace. AdorableRuffian 18:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's pretty clear that AFD should be "about" deleting articles that don't need to be separate articles. There's still not enough content here from reliable sources to merit writing an article separate from the Get Heavy article or the Lordi article. — coelacan talk — 12:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per my comments in the Blood Red Sandman AfD. WMMartin 21:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm cutting and pasting those comments here for the convenience of other editors: "Not notable enough to stand as an aricle in its own right. The only Lordi track that can be regarded as notable enough to get a separate article is Hard Rock Hallelujah, for its historical significance. The other articles about Lordi tracks should also go. WMMartin" — coelacan talk — 13:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per my comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Who's Your Daddy? (song). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep released, charting singles. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I worried some time about adding my opinion to these AfDs, as not only did I create the articles, but share a username with one. However, not only are charting singles notable, more importantly, here and here, we've already decided not to merge these articles into Lordi. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 07:37, 14 February 2007 (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.