- 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 merge to Infinity on High. czar 02:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thriller (Fall Out Boy song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article is based on album reviews for Infinity on High. so it doesn't establish a separate WP:SIGCOV. I searched sources independently and I found two, both from NME,[1][2] one written from Patrick Stump's point of view and the other from Pete Wentz's view. Those sources don't say anything different from what is already said by the sources present in the article. And Infinity on High mentions part of the article's content anyway. (CC) Tbhotch™ 03:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Infinity on High: sources in article only make very brief mentions of the song, and the same goes for the two NME articles the nominator linked. Nowhere near enough for an independent article. I wouldn't oppose a merger if there are any valuable statements included here which aren't already in the album article. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Meets WP:GNG - The article is comprehensive and there is commentary about the song in multiple reliable sources. Slant Magazine, Northern Valley Suburbanite, Alternative Press, Guitar.com. Additionally the song leads with an introduction from Jay Z which garnered much press like in the Los Angeles Times and other major media outlets.Note, as the article's main author I was not notified of this AfD. Bruxton (talk) 04:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- In the past I would have said the same. The article itself is not the issue, but the sources are. They are all about the album, so the critics naturally write about the songs featured in the album from that perspective. For example, "I've Got All This Ringing in My Ears and None on My Fingers" is also mentioned by two of the sources you included and some sources included at Infinity on High, but that doesn't mean we should have an article for it. This was practically the conclusion reached at previous AFD discussions like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Hot Kinda Love, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don't Let Me Down (Leona Lewis song), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Hands. A good example of how this is reversed is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloody Mary (Lady Gaga song), a song that was marignally notable when it was released, but that gained independent notability after an external event created that notability; that is, being used in a TV series and secondary sources discussing it independently from the album. (CC) Tbhotch™ 05:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge (into Infinity on High) - it has good info, but I agree with the nom. – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) 06:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I came here from DYK and I am the editor who approved this article's nomination when it ran on the main page. During the approval process many editors, administrators and readers vetted the article. The article clearly meets our general notability guide. A topic is "notable" if there is enough usable coverage of it in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, to write a good encyclopedic article. I think that is what we have here, a good encyclopedic article about the song, based on multiple secondary sources. Lightburst (talk) 01:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You can refer to WP:NSONGS: "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability." (CC) Tbhotch™ 03:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- We should not focus on the SNG - WP:NSONG, according to WP:N
A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG); and t is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.
I believe that it meets GNG based on the RS. Lightburst (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sadly, they are not a reason to keep the page alone. Some sources are trivial and none of the sources present is about the song alone; they are about the album, regardless on how you'd like to word it. As I said before, just because the sources at Infinity on High#References mention songs like Don't You Know Who I Think I Am?, I've Got All This Ringing in My Ears and None on My Fingers, or Bang the Doldrums, we have to create their articles based on album reviews that trivially reviewed them from the album's perspective, like it occured with Thriller (Fall Out Boy song).
- On the talk page I left the sources review. I don't see the independent, non-trivial, non-passing mentions content that indicate significant coverage that is independent from the parent album. I see sources speaking about the song from the album's context focusing on being named after a Michael Jackson album and inadvertently having a rap intro by Jay-Z, both facts that can be covered by the album's composition section.
- As much as you'd like to keep the page, this hadn't had to run on the main page in the first place and you made a mistake by approving an article built on trivialities. Proof of this is the fact that this song hasn't been discussed by critics in subsequent releases thoroughly and it needs to have a background that doesn't even mention the song and has to rely exclusively on trivial album mentions. (CC) Tbhotch™ 04:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You have made seven edits to the article and you have typed 6527 characters (1062 words) in an effort to remove an article that is only 2963 characters (517 words). This AfD time-suck is an example of why I am not as active in deletion lately. You have lost credibility in your source assessment because I randomly looked at #9: you referred to three full paragraphs discussing the song as a passing mention. And #15 you refer to an article which features this song as one of 15 heaviest songs as a passing mention. I am not going to focus on all the WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments. Also I really need to start observing WP:COAL and maybe you should too. Lightburst (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion divided between Keeping this article and Merge/Redirect it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, hopefully we can see more participation to come to a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 15:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Infinity on High. Talking about editors' statistical contributions rarely impresses a closer, especially when it fails to engage with the nominator's primary argument: all coverage presented or applied seems in connection to the album, not to the song by itself. I made a reasonable BEFORE, and I saw nothing where the song was the sole focus of the piece. BusterD (talk) 14:36, 25 July 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.