Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You Missed

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 redirect‎ to Tom MacDonald (rapper). Looks unanimous. Glad this was a civil discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

You Missed

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

You Missed (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 almost exclusively cited to non-RS sites, and isn't even that notable to begin with (I may be wrong). Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 03:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Politics. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 03:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to Tom MacDonald (rapper): None of the sources here are reliable; they're mostly right-wing publications with clear bias which would never pass the smell test at WT:RSP, the Forbes article fails FORBESCON, and the rest are YouTube and social media. Found no additional coverage. Charting section is full of SINGLEVENDOR fails.

From my past experience, it is important to be wary of the potential for this to be swarmed with comments by biased editors. Hopefully they don't notice this one like they did the one I linked, but if they do, there may be a mess to pick through. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Not !voting at this point, but will note in regard to the Forbes piece, even if it gets by FORBESCON due to the author being a recognized expert in an appropriate realm (I've not checked), it's unusable because Forbes or the author withdrew the piece; it was on the website less than half a day, which is not a matter of simply aging out (indeed, I don't think Forbes ever actually ages things off the site.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect as per suggested above. There's no indication this song is independently notable at this point. Cortador (talk) 07:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect fails GNG/NSONG. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Here is a source assessment table based on all the coverage I could find:

If anyone finds anything else, let me know. C F A 💬 16:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Wait to see if/how well the song charts. Dswitz10734 (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Wait, the song has a high likelihood of making the Hot 100. Keep your own politics out of it. TrevortniDesserpedx (talk) 02:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect per CFA's source analysis; evidently fails GNG at this time. "Wait" is not an option grounded in how the notability policy works—if it becomes notable in the future, the article can be recreated then. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 04:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  Wait It's clear you people just want to delete anything positive towards trump. 90.244.131.5 (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  This AfD has nothing to do with politics, and as Bremp told you at the "File:Shooting of Donald Trump" deletion discussion, lets asssume good faith here. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 13:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

  And in fact if we redirect it rather than delete it, restoration requires trivial effort as the current version of the article will still be in the page's history. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to performer's article Absolutely no chance this gets radio airplay, this is pretty much in quickly-forgotten novelty song territory no matter where this charts. Nate • (chatter) 22:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to the artist per discussion above. Di (they-them) (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to artist. WWGB (talk) 02:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
• Wait As the creator of the page, I knew it would be a WP:BOLD move making the article so early after the release, so I ask if we can wait until the Billboard Charts for this week come out. If there isn't much notable about its placement in the charts then I could see a merge/redirect as the next suitable option. Cheers! Johnson524 04:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Nominations are up for seven days so the 'wait' importations are the equivalent of pushing the close button on an elevator; it's happening and you just have to be patient. Nate • (chatter) 16:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

  @MrSchimpf I get what you mean, but the song's placement on Billboard Charts literally had not been released yet, which could establish notability. Johnson524 18:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect per previous votes and lack of proper sourcing. As for the question of chart position, chartwatchers project that the song will debut at #1...on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 chart and the Digital Songs chart. I'm not familiar with Wikipedia's notability guidelines for music, but I'm guessing that's not enough to overcome this song's failure to meet GNG. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Redirect (per CFA comment) The Billboard Chart placements just released, and the single placed first in Digital Song Sales (and was already added to the article List of Billboard Digital Song Sales number ones of 2024 by another editor) and second in the Bubbling Under Hot 100, which isn't as impressive but still another chart ranking. At least for Digital Song Sales, doesn't this keep the article within notability guidelines? Johnson524 18:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  Well, no. Because it ranked #1 on Digital Song Sales, it's probably going to chart somewhere on the Hot 100 but that is still speculation. This does not indicate standalone notability, though. Per WP:NSONG:

  Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.

  A standalone article about a song should satisfy the above criteria ("they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works"). Any of the following factors suggest that a song or single may be notable enough that a search for coverage in reliable independent sources will be successful.

  1. 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.)

  2. Has won one or more significant awards or honors, such as a Grammy, Latin Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.

  3. Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups.

  A position on a chart serves an indicator that the song may have enough coverage to warrant an article. However, in this case, it does not. As I mentioned above, the only coverage is in unreliable sources. The entire article, in fact, is sourced to those unreliable sources (because no further coverage exists). There are not enough reliable sources covering the topic to write an article longer than a sentence and a table with the chart positions. It therefore does not warrant its own article — at least not yet. It can always be retrieved from the page history if notability is established later. C F A 💬 18:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  @CFA: You state your case really well 🙂 I'll strike my keep comment to redirect, but can the article still be kept in the page's redirect history if more sources ever become available? (they probably won't, but just in case) Cheers! Johnson524 01:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, the redirect is done as just an edit, the history is not deleted. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  @NatGertler: Thank you for clarifying 🙂 Cheers! Johnson524 02:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Redirect. The article seems to be a mix of rephrased lyrics and many minor non-notable claims to notability. It needs more info about the real-world impact and some commentary on the lyrics, which is even rarer in RS after that forbescon article was retracted. Per WP:NSONG, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. However, a layman reader might have trouble understanding the importance of the article beyond a single sentence: "You Missed is a pro-Trump song by McDonald that was popular after the attempted assassination." The information contained would still be beneficial in a section of the artist's article. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I mean that's a little bit harsh. There are quite a few sources, its more about their reliability that's the issue. Johnson524 01:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I genuinely appreciate you taking the time to revise your comment. I agree with all of your statements, and since more reliable sources do not exist presently, I believe the article should be redirected to the MacDonald page, and any beneficial information merged into it as well. Happy editing 🙂 Johnson524 03:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Notes

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.