Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poison (Beyoncé Knowles 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. The debate has gone on for a while, and regardless of the revised WP:NSONGS, it passes GNG. Bearian (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Poison (Beyoncé Knowles song)

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

Non-notable song - sources cited are basic writing and production credits etc, and a few critical reviews. It charted only on a Korean chart specific to international songs - hardly an important or noteworthy chart. Adabow (talk) 06:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. 06:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC) Adabow (talk) 06:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Adabow, charting is not a requirement. It charted at number one on a national chart, we don't distinguish between types of charts or say that some charts are more important than others. A chart is a chart, no matter what country or what position it charts at. I wish people would learn the rules before nominating a load of noteworthy articles which pass guidelines. It's getting very tiresome and petty now.

Songs and singles may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria:

Has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work.[3] Y
Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. Y
Has won one or more significant awards or honors. Wasn't a single, so no.
Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups. Wasn't a single, so not as many people would know about it.

It passes WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. It passes two our of four for the latter, I might add, as demonstrated above. It's also not good faith to AfD for a GA nominee. — AARON • ^TALK 11:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meeting one of those criteria don't make a song notable; while the notability guidelines are indeed very helpful in measuring and judging notability, at then end of the day the question is: is there a wide audience which knows of the subject and is interested in learning the finer details? Articles like this are essentially fancruft compilations of album reviews. Nothing "stands out" about this song. If people want a song on every album track for an artist they should create a relevant wiki; Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a fan forum. Adabow (talk) 21:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does, that's the whole point of the guideline, that it meets at least one of them. Exactly, this is an encyclopaedia, it's not a bias article, so it's not a "fan forum". You can't argue this I'm afraid. — AARON • ^TALK 23:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Aaron. It has been backed up by multiple non-trivial references (7, 9, 11, 13), this and as it topped South Korea, this song satisfies the "Songs and singles may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria". It may be notable as it meets two points of NSONGS; win an award or receive a cover does not always happen, even with singles. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that it meets the criteria set out by NSONGS, which means that it "may be notable". However, the article basically consists of writing/production credits, album reviews and a charting. The credits are already included in the I Am... Sasha Fierce article, there is probably a mention of the critique of this song in the critical reception section of that article, and the charting could be mentioned there if necessary (though it is pretty minor...). Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and to me this article seems superfluous. (To be honest, I think editors' time would be better spent raising the quality of existing articles, rather than delving into every obscure nook and cranny of possible articles... but I'm getting off topic here) Adabow (talk) 06:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, may be notable if it meets one of the four points, and it meets two. If it didn't meet any, then it may not be notable (but it's highly unlikely that an article would not meet at least one). You've just said it meets the criteria, so you really haven't got a leg to stand on now. — AARON • ^TALK 12:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The song is notable enough and it was a chart-topper in South Korea. It's not like it peaked outside the top 50. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to the album, either I Am... Sasha Fierce or whatever else it's from. Songs from notable albums are good redirects if they don't qualify for their own articles. Nyttend (talk) 19:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to the album (redirect per Nyttend). I really don't see enough convincing independent "Poison"-only sources to make this notable on its own, and charting is inherently dubious when dealing with South Korea and their unusual system. Notability is not guaranteed by meeting one or more of the "may be notable" criteria listed in WP:NSONGS, it just means it might be possible; Aaron's interpretation that two criteria means it's automatically notable is simply wrong. I'm also not convinced this meets WP:GNG. (Incidentally, a GA nomination is not a get-out-of-jail-free card; articles should be notable, and a number of GA-nominated articles have proven not to be in the past.) Additionally, I think it's a serious matter that the article's Charts section is seriously flawed: its assumption that source 15 covers January through April looks wrong to me, when a clear look at what would be February (2.2010) would make it clear that it isn't February at all, since there's no way that any single would sell over 337 million copies (the country has only 50 million people), much less in 28 days. And since "Poison" was released in February and supposedly made number 1 for at least one week—I can't get that chart data to display on my screen when I access source 14, and don't see the name "Beyonce" anywhere, much less "Poison", so I'm AGFing on this one, though I think a 2011 access date in the ref for a 2013 article is odd—it would almost certainly have sold better in that month than any other. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Supposedly" ? You can't access it because you can't be bothered to find out how to. It's a bit of a poor excuse. Ask someone, and I'm sure they would help. — AARON • ^TALK 09:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll read carefully, you'll see I said I was AGFing it. And, if you'd wanted to be helpful, you could have explained how, since simply clicking on the link in the ref doesn't work, and that's the standard method. (Some refs that require more than a simple click do explain how the info can be found, which makes them useful for ordinary readers.) Thanks anyway. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go to "Let There Be Love (Christina Aguilera song)" and look in the references and follow the instructions I have set out, but apply the year and week accordingly to this song. — AARON • ^TALK 23:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had actually already tried that before I posted my initial comment, clicking on the Gaon weekly link, selecting the year 2010 and the week 2010.02.07-2010.02.13: I get a pop-up with what I assume is an error in Korean and no listing. I've tried other weeks, and the earliest week I can get to work is 2010.04.11-2010.04.17; testing half a dozen others before then gets the same pop-up as the week we're looking for. Does that February 7, 2010 date work for you? BlueMoonset (talk) 23:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does work because I've seen Poison at number before when I've been going through week by week. The website isn't working for me right now, I'll try again tomorrow. — AARON • ^TALK 01:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to parent album. Aside from the usual personnel info from the album booklet and various comments compiled from reviews of Sasha Fierce, this article appears to contain no other information about the song other its than inclusion on a (non-notable) DatPiff mixtape, two sentences about composition, and a placement on a relatively minor Korean international downloads chart. A third of the sources used in the article are from album booklets and listings of the album on digital retailers (in fact, a majority of the background section is duplication of the personnel section in prose form). It should be noted that just because a song may pass a criterion of WP:NSONGS or WP:GNG does not automatically make it notable. Having taken a look at the article's content, I don't think the song has enough stand-alone information to warrant an entire article. Holiday56 (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Important note: the WP:NSONGS criteria have just changed—an RFC on the change was closed today after being open for well over two months, and the new wording is in place. The Poison article, to my mind, is even more clearly non-notable under the revised guidelines, and some of the arguments made above are no longer applicable as they relied on the old wording. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2013 (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.