Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dead! (song) (3rd 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. Owen× ☎ 16:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dead! (song)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Dead! (song) (3rd nomination)

[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)

As much as I would love to see more article about My Chemical Romance, I don't believe that this one fits the bill for notability per WP:NSONG. While the song is indeed certified, none of the sources on the page (save for the ones concerning the certification itself) have the song as its primary subject, rather they are listicles concerning the album or the band's discography as a whole. Furthermore, a customary WP:BEFORE check nets the same conclusion (and as the author of a different article on The Black Parade, I can further attest to this, as I've naturally seen a lot of articles on the album's songs). Leafy46 (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it didn't seem to automatically include them, here are references to the previous nominations:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dead!

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dead! (2nd Nomination) Leafy46 (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. C F A 💬 15:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the certifications and multiple high rankings among the band's songs are plenty for notability. The articles may not all be primarily about this song, but that doesn't mean they aren't valuable in terms of notability. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 15:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I think there's a difference between just getting a sentence thrown in a review and getting a whole dedicated section of a list article like this song has in multiple of the included sources. Those sections are primarily about this song, and I would think that counts for something. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 15:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NSONG, certifications "indicate only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable", and "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". There are a few sources which do speak about the song as part of the band's discography as a whole, however I don't know if those are sufficient to prove its notability. Leafy46 (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Newtatoryd222 and Dan arndt: Pinging the AFC submitter and approver, to see another perspective Leafy46 (talk) 03:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, after assessment I consider that there is enough independent secondary sources supplied to support its notability, in accordance with the requirements of WP:NSONG. Dan arndt (talk) 01:49, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree, simply because most of the secondary sources are rankings of the album, or of songs in the band's discography. The former are certainly not acceptable under WP:NSONG (and the fact it makes up the majority of the sources doesn't bode well), and thus that leaves four sources in the article from Billboard, Kerrang!, Loudwire, and Louder:
- The Billboard article is probably the best claim to notability the song has, as it received a #3 ranking in the discography as a whole, but it deals almost entirely with the song's critical reception (with some small analysis of its lyrics).
- The Kerrang! article sees a musician naming "Dead!" as their favorite MCR song, which is fairly trivial and is entirely reception-based.
- The Loudwire article is a ranking of every MCR song, with Dead! receiving comparable, if not slightly less, coverage to the other songs; if this suggests the song is notable, then it should go that every song in MCR's discography is, which certainly is not the case.
- Finally, the Louder article is another listicle which ranks the band's discography, and mostly focuses on the song's reception (with some comments on the composition).
The song is not the primary subject of any of these sources, and most of the sources say nothing about the song itself other than critics' opinions on it. I would be in support of a merge at this point, with a section on the article for The Black Parade being created that focuses on each song including this one. This is mostly because, aside from the reception section, there isn't much information about the song's background, composition, or lyrics, and I doubt more information is going to come out which would lead to this article holding up as a standalone entity. What do you think? Leafy46 (talk) 04:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan arndt: Forgot to ping, sorry! Leafy46 (talk) 04:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leafy46 I guess we need to agree that we both disagree with each other's point of view. If you add the coverage about the songs, whether it is exclusively about the song or a section of a review which includes specific coverage about the song, together with certifications for the song I believe is sufficient to weigh the scales in favour of retaining the article. Dan arndt (talk) 04:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan arndt: Fair enough, you certainly do have quite a lot of expertise in AFC reviewing and this seems to boil down to a difference in interpreting the guidelines. I suppose my argument ultimately comes down to things like this current draft, Draft:House of Wolves (song). While certainly a more extreme example (and without the certifications you mentioned), I simply do not think that an article can subsist solely on album rankings and listicles, even if the song appears on them and critics give their reviews about it. What I mean to say is that, if I were to go back into this article and try to add more information to it, I'd probably find very few sources outside of its critical reception; on the other hand, it could adequately be summarized on the album page that "Songs like "Dead!" have consistently appeared in top positions on critical rankings of the band's discography" under a legacy section or the sorts. Leafy46 (talk) 05:12, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:NSONG. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nomination discounts too much the effect of certification. Not a claim that certification equates with notability, rather on the balance of sourcing with certification NSONG satisfied. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:36, 19 August 2024 (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.