Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True Lies (song)

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. Consensus is stronger that WP:NSONG has been met. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

True Lies (song)

[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)

Only one source is actually talking about the subject, and it's only for approximately a sentence-and-a-half. That could easily be merged into the album's article (although that doesn't look much better). Nothing else here proves notability. Made a PROD for this that was removed, similar PROD for Shame About That was also removed but that article was converted to a redirect to the album, I would support that move here as well. QuietHere (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Charted on one of Billboard's charts. DonaldD23 talk to me 16:37, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:NSONG: "Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. (Note again that this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable.)" Aside from the obvious "may be notable" point, I'd also like to emphasise the use of plural "charts", implying a want for multiple. This song only appeared on one chart (Hot Country Songs) and (in my opinion) didn't even have a very impressive chart run, only lasting for six weeks and peaking at a position that no longer exists on the chart (Peaked at #59, chart only has 50 positions per WP). Unless there is missing chart data then that is definitely not enough for me, and even still more chart data wouldn't make up for the lack of coverage elsewhere. QuietHere (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote: Shame About That has been unredirected, will be starting an AFD for that momentarily. QuietHere (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, charted single on Billboard, received media attention both before and after the fact for being the debut of a notable performer. The sources in the article pass WP:SIGCOV. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree with @Donaldd23: It has charted on Billboard and you're are forgetting the critique from No Depression. That is a credible source from credible journalist. Like I said with Sara's other singles, this song exemplifies her early career persona as a traditionally-minded country vocalist. The reader needs examples of notable songs that further explain this to better understand her career. It also one of Evans's self-penned tracks. This is an important descriptor to her as an artist indicating that she has several skill sets adding to her credibility as an artist. ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The No Depression review doesn't specifically mention this song by name though. The "(such as 'True Lies')" excerpt in the WP article is built on an assumption that that is one of the songs being referred to, and that's gotta be a solid example of WP:OR. If the source isn't literally talking about this song, you can't just apply what it's saying as you please. And again, it charted on one chart and didn't even peak in the top 50 there. That argument is flying in the face of WP policy. QuietHere (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- As of now the consensus appears to not be in your favor. Your opinion is not the only one being inputted here. I will keep looking for information in the mean time to further prove the point this article makes. ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 00:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - This kind of back-and-forth discussion about sources is normal and is how information about the article is brought to light. AFD is not a contest where one "side" wins. Stick to the policies and the facts and the disposition of the article should become clear. Lamona (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- And I found another article explaining why Evans believed this song did not chart higher on the Billboard chart. This source is from Country Standard Time, a reputable country music site written by journalists and writers. I added this to article. ChrisTofu11961 (talk) 00:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote: I've posed a query about this song's chart run at WT:SONGS, hoping to clear up my own apparent confusion at some of the policy in question. I'd prefer to see a consensus established there before this closes, if that's allowed, as it may have a significant effect on this AFD's outcome. Thank you for your patience. QuietHere (talk) 05:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NSONGS is clear that charting alone is not enough to meet notability criteria. None of the sources discuss the song at length, and that is what is required for notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NSONG per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 00:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sara Evans - The highest chart position this song reached was 59. The #1 source here does not mention this particular song, and really should be removed. The article says that the song got positive reviews, but only one is cited, and the Country Standard Time article talks about how disappointing the sales were for the album, and states: "The first single, "True Lies," released in March 1997, only reached 59, while a third single, the more uptempo "Shame About That," did slightly worse." This does make it seem that the song was not successful. So far I haven't found in depth RS about this song. Lamona (talk) 01:39, 17 April 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.