Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skin (Rihanna song)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. v/r - TP 17:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Skin (Rihanna song)

[edit]
Skin (Rihanna song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:MUSIC. | helpdןǝɥ | 01:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete – YET ANOTHER pointless article. Seriously, when will this end? Sure, it is a well-written article, but it does not need the main criteria for song articles: charting and/or awards. It was performed live, and some critics talked about it (mostly as a part of the album review). That does not warrant for its own article. I really wish users would stop making articles just for the hell of it, and to have each song on an particular album have its own article like its an accomplishment or something. — Status {talkcontribs 01:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Before i decide what to vote, i have a few questions / suggestions. I think this song was used in an Armani Jeans add, right? I think Rihanna went to Brazil to shoot a video for this, right? If we have sources proving these two the cancelled release (which is already there), this will reinforce the existence of this article on Wikipedia. If not i still have to say that this article is well written. First, answer my queries, then i will decide. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 05:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - For fucks sakes, Fading (song) has been through this as well and was kept. I'm sorry, but people need to sort out their fucking priorities. There are so many article with about 2 sentences in them that nobody gives a shit about when they should nominate those for AfD instead, NOT well written and notable articles like this. I'm so pissed of people constantly having a go at everything I do and dragging things down for me. There is, once again, no reason to delete this article. There is actually more information than Raining Men (song), yet Raining Men gets to stay because it was a single. And if Fading is allowed to be kept, then there is no reason why this one can't be too, and I'm pretty sure it will be, which will screw up the GAN and will be quick failed for not being stable, just like Fading was. Great, thanks a lot. And I don't care that I'm swearing here, I speak my mind and how I feel. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 07:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No consensus is not the same thing as Kept buddy. "Raining Men" was a SINGLE and CHARTED. That's the criteria. And since when is speaking your mind talking like a pirate? I suggest you cool your jets. — Status {talkcontribs 14:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the article is still here, is it not? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    With no agreement on whether it should be deleted or kept. — Status {talkcontribs 14:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    But it's still here. Keep was a majority rule anyway, and has everything for it to pass notability, as it has also charted. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTAVOTE. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And regardless of your own interpretations, keep =/= no consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 19:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - NSONG is clear, GNG is irrelevant and is not an exception to NSONG. No charts? No page. Its as simple as that with very few exceptions - this however, is not an exception. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 08:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments like "GNG is irrelevant" are completely incorrect. GNG trumps the SNGs (of which NSONGS is one) every day of the week. The purpose of the SNGs is to give an indication of what articles will probably be notable (i.e. meet the GNG), not to preclude us having articles on topics that have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Jenks24 (talk) 01:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Status and Lakeshake. And saying that it has "more information" than Raining Men (song) is irrelevant and untrue. Raining Men was a single, it charted and there is at least some background info related to the song. Skin's background info is basically just what's written in the booklet. Also, the opening sentence in the Background section about Rihanna's previous tour and some movie she appears in is in no way relevant to the song. And Calvin, it appears that you always take these delete proposals too personally. Pancake (talk) 13:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The bit about when the song was recorded is just as relevant here as it is on the Loud article as well as it's singles articles. And I've only ever had one other article I created be AfD, even though it passed notability in the first place. I just think that instead of focusing on this well written and informational article that certain people should look out for other article which have about 2 lines on them, yet no one seems to care about that. And of course I'm going to defend an article I created that I spent hours and hours researching and writing! Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 17:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Calvin. Threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, with secondary sources, not charts and singles. DeansFA (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NSONGS calls for charts and awards. — Status {talkcontribs 14:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." There is enough verifiable material to be notable. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 15:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NSONGS is a guideline. « Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. ». I repeat what I said : Threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, with secondary sources, not charts and singles. It means that songs with charts and singles can be deleted if there's no secondary sources, and conversely a song tithout charts and single, with secondary sources, can be kept. DeansFA (talk) 16:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a very valid point, and what I have been trying to say for literally ages, but no one listens. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 16:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's what happens when you muddle your arguments with all sorts of irrelevent information (telling how "pissed" you are, swearing, carrying on about how hard your worked on the article,etc.) If you'd concentrate your argument on policy, and less of all that, people would probably be more likely to listen to you. But as it is, even if they do listen to you, judging by the comments at this AFD, there are 2 legitimate interpretation of the situation. Sergecross73 msg me 16:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to make a point which I think everyone is unaware of. This article was created by an editor in November 2010 and re-directed to Loud in the same edit. It was only this month that I wrote the article. I don't think the article should be deleted, regardless of the consensus. I think it should either be kept, or re-directed back to Loud like it originally was before I wrote it. Because I spent a lot of time on this, and if any info comes up in the future, it would be very frustrating to have to write it again. I think this is reasonable. (Fading was originally a re-direct, and Complicated (Rihanna song) still is a re-direct. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 20:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The points made in the previous paragraph are mostly irrelevant. Also, consensus is everything. If they say delete, sorry. Also, I don't really see why those redirects were needed in the first place before they charted, but I will leave that alone considering their current status. | helpdןǝɥ | 20:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was for incase they became a single. What is to stop me from re-directing it back to Loud right now? Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 21:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Explaining how it satisfies notability is a valid argument. Providing extra sources is a good approach. Saying stuff like "I worked hard and spent time on this" or "this is hard work/it'd be hard to recreate" are not relevant reasons to keep an article. Sergecross73 msg me 04:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have, a lot. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 11:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - loads of excellent citations including a review in the New York Times. Some of the references are necessarily brief, but it passes WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Her music is not my thing, but it appears from the article to have been a notable song. If needed, a smerge back to the CD would be applicable. Bearian (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to the album article. The article is well-sourced, but unfortunately none of the sources in the article at the moment actually cover the song in significant detail – they are either articles on the album as a whole or reviews of her live shows – none are specifically about the song. The album is a pretty decent article, so I'm not sure if it needs the info that's currently in this article, but it's at least worth a redirect (redirects are cheap). Jenks24 (talk) 01:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why people don't get that the song was not released as a single, thus, it will not have dedicated reviews just for the song like other's would. Therefore, the only commentaries are from the album reviews, just like What's My Name? does, just like S&M does, just like Man Down does. Just because this is a song and not a single, doesn't mean album reviews are not acceptable. They are still reviews. And the Live performance section is specifically about the controversial performing of Skin, so I don't really get your point about it not being about the song. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 11:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is this reply specifically to my comment, Calvin? I'll assume it as and answer your question. It is perfectly acceptable to reference album reviews in song articles, but the GNG requires significant coverage, not just passing mentions in articles that are not primarily about the song. You bring up a bunch of other articles, but WP:WAX is never a good argument at AfDs and for songs like "S&M", it is easy to find sources that are solely about that song – not so for this article. I was left a note on my talk page about having another look at this, but I still think a merge would be the right outcome (though I think it would be a good idea to merge the "Live performances" section to Loud Tour). Looking at the sources in the article, I see only one that is primarily about this song and the GNG requires multiple sources. I feel bad for sticking with this line when it's clear that people have put a lot of effort into the article, but the fact is that it does not meet the relevant notability guidelines (NSONGS or GNG). We cannot apply IAR (as is suggested below) just because people have put time into the article – that would open us up to keeping every article where the creator has put a lot of effort in – we have notability guidelines for a reason. Jenks24 (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A merge is just pointless. There is too much info to merge it, I assume you would suggest merging with Loud (Rihanna album)? I very rarely agree with merges, just because of how much info gets lost. And I disagree about the reviews comment. It doesn't matter if Skin got it's reviews by way of album reviews, it's still reviews about the song, and a lot of people commented on the song, thus it is significant coverage. People are still not realizing that Skin was not released as a single, so there are no single reviews. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 22:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSONGS says that "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." This article has enough verifiable material and it is detailed. My love is love (talk) 20:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Notability aside", meaning that other than needing notability (charting). This guideline is directly referring to stub articles that have minimal charting and are better off being merged into a parent article. Lets not pick parts of a sentence out of a guideline and read the whole thing: "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." This is not referring to an non-charting song, this is referring to a charted and notable song that does not have enough information. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I misunderstood the rule. But according to that, every song by Janis Joplin should be deleted because they didn't chart. And I just took Joplin as an example. There are also million other articles about songs that didn't chart. Why don't you nominate them for deleting? I'm still voting that this should be kept. My love is love (talk) 21:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again with the WP:OTHERCRAP? Were are not discussing those articles we are discussing this one. Go delete them yourself. That's fine you can vote however you wish, it doesn't mean it will be counted seeing as you've just been out argued and your vote now holds no logical reason other than IDONTLIKEIT. Nothing further because this comment is rhetorical? - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to argue with you. After all you have the rules on your side but this is my opinion and I'm telling it here. Btw I expanded the article and now it has 21 sources. My love is love (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep = A detailed and reliably sourced article that offers full coverage that would be bulky and excessive in a discography or album article. WP:NSONGS is a guideline and should be treated as such; "[p]lease note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept". SplashScreen (talk) 00:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the use in a popular commercial and the controversy surrounding the sexual performances makes the lack of chart position quite irrelevant. An argument stating that this detailed and thoroughly sourced article should be deleted because it didn't scrape the top 100 downloads in Outer Mongolia seems like a case of splitting hairs. SplashScreen (talk) 17:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is very detailed and It looks as if the users editing this article took alot of time editing it. It has alot of sources, deleting and/or merging it would be pointless. Nicholas (talk) 15:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NSONGS works best as an exclusion criteria: without it, nearly every album track by a popular artist could have one of these fan-pages made about it. Using it as a leveling tool to set a common expectation of what songs get articles works well, and making exceptions to it should be a rare occurrence. There's nothing about this song that is so special that it requires making an exception.—Kww(talk) 10:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "without it, nearly every album track by a popular artist could have one of these fan-pages made about it". But if they pass the WP:GNG, what's wrong with that? And dismissing this as a "fan-page" is neither accurate or productive. "There's nothing about this song that is so special" - use in a popular advertising campaign and a notable controversy over its performances seems pretty special to me. SplashScreen (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • [WP:GNG]] is a minimal inclusion criteria: passing it doesn't guarantee inclusion of an article, it is the minimum requirement for being considered as a standalone article. WP:NSONGS expresses the community expectation of when that separate article will actually be created, and I think it's a reasonable one. Having articles about every album track simply causes name-space collisions and indexing problems without actually adding substantive information.—Kww(talk) 18:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one can help that 10 out of 11 tracks have an article. That's what happens when 7 songs are released as singles and two others chart. Beyonce's B'Day has an article for every track apart from one, and 4 has one for nearly every one too. And I'm not creating them for the sake of it, if I was then I would have made one for Complicated. Skin has a lot of info about it, has been used in a advertising campaign and has been performed live, which attracted a lot of controversy. If Freakum Dress and Suga Mama can stay, then so can Skin. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 18:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He said a lot more than just that. Did you read all of what he said? Like the part about WP:NSONGS? It's easy to claim arguments as "trivial" when you only address a small portion of the discussion...Sergecross73 msg me 20:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the article on the album. NSONGS doesn't say that songs which didn't chart aren't notable, it says that songs which did chart are probably notable, which isn't the same thing at all. However the sources cited in this article all mention the song in passing while discussing the album so we ought to do the same. Hut 8.5 18:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since I added this comment some sources about performances of the song which have attracted controversy have been added. Again Skin is only mentioned in passing and I would suggest that this content be added to The Loud Tour. I don't think that discussions of the advert belong in this article. Incidentally I would strongly discourage the use of the Daily Mail as a source for anything relating to a living person. Hut 8.5 21:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a biography of a living person. The Daily Mail is an extremely prominent British newspaper and it has commented on the sexual nature of a musical performance. Whether it has been sued or not is neither here nor there, as no legal action has been taken in this case. SplashScreen (talk) 00:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a biography of a living person according to Wikipedia policy. Any content about living people, anywhere, falls under the BLP policy WP:BLP#Where BLP does and does not apply). The fact that the article is about a song doesn't change this. You're citing a notoriously unreliable tabloid newspaper as a source for a claim that a living person did something controversial in a concert. BLP is not about preventing lawsuits, it is about preventing harm to living people. Hut 8.5 08:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the article does not say "Rihanna did something controversial (Daily Mail source)", it says "When critically reviewing one of the performances of Skin, the Daily Mail assessed that her behaviour was controversial (Daily Mail source)". If it was the former, I'd agree with you. But it's not. SplashScreen (talk) 09:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - The song is the music in an Armani Jeans campaign ad and Rihanna performs this song regularly as a part of the Loud Tour (those performances have attracted lots of coverage because they have been deemed controversial, etc). The song is quite notable. Tons of verifiable material, for crying out loud. Material that is separate - the comment that most of the article's information comes from the album's booklet is erroneous and egregious. This nomination actually seems pretty ridiculous given all the coverage of this song, especially its live performances!--mikomango mwa! 22:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I always nominate music-related articles for deletion as they have not charted and are completely non-notable, but in this case the song has received widespead coverage (see reference list), therefore it passes WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS ("a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article"). 11coolguy12 (talk) 09:22, 28 October 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Skin_(Rihanna_song)&oldid=1140115417"