Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wreckage (Pearl Jam 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. A bit early, but this is WP:SNOW at this point. asilvering (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wreckage (Pearl Jam song)

[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)

Charts not withstanding, I don't see any coverage of this song besides the short, press release-derived announcement articles every single gets (stereoboard), or entirely derivative of Eddie Vedder's promotional interviews on the Sunday Times and the Howard Stern Show (Variety). Redirection is reccomended. Mach61 23:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Mach61 23:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the album topped the US Mainstream Rock chart - that essentially means it was the most popular song at rock radio in the entire country. Beyond that, dedicated coverage was extremely easy to find:

Normally, I'd suggest a WP:BEFORE search wasn't follows through on, but some of these were in the article already, so I'm not really sure what's going on with this nomination. This song topped multiple major song charts. Extremely bizarre to think this is the sort of song that isn't notable. Sergecross73 msg me 00:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73 I clicked on literally all of these links before nominating. The People and aforementioned Variety articles fall under "derivative of interview", the Billboard articles are primary sourceing for their own chart and impression numbers, and the Rolling Stone, UCR, and Louder articles fall under PR-dervied announcements published right after the single dropped. Nothing linked here has in-depth, independent critical analysis of the song. Mach61 19:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then I guess the problem is your interpretation of the notability criteria. You're setting the bar way too high. Not to mention, common sense alone should deter you from nominating WP:GOODCHART chart-toppers. The logistics of a song topping major charts and not getting the bare minimum handful of sources is exceedingly low. Sergecross73 msg me 21:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews may be primary sources but once an article is "derivative of the interview" it is secondary. The Billboard articles are primary sourcing for their own chart, but the article being nominated for deletion is not Billboard's chart, but the song "Wreckage", and so Billboard is a secondary source for that topic. Rlendog (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rlendog Interviews may be primary sources but once an article is "derivative of the interview" it is secondary. Not true. See WP:secondary does not mean secondhand. Mach61 23:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, that is an essay, not a guideline. Secondly, it is consistent with what I said - a secondary source "is based on primary and other secondary source material, and may include synthesis and novel conclusions." (bold added). Rlendog (talk) 00:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. The subject is the song, not the chart. For this subject, Billboard is not a primary source. Sergecross73 msg me 01:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dark Matter (Pearl Jam album) per nomination. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

QuietHere I'm quite surprised to see this response considering we generally have common readings on the notability standards, and this nomination is horribly flawed. Can you expand a bit more? This song didn't just chart, it topped multiple charts and there's no shortage of WP:RSMUSIC approved sources writing dedicated coverage centered around it. Sergecross73 msg me 00:19, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73 I must've posted my comment at the same time as yours because I didn't see it. Seeing you put it in perspective and looking through the sources you posted, it does look a lot more convincing than I initially thought. I've stricken my vote; I think I come out neutral on the question now. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks notable enough to me. A prominent single from Pearl Jam's latest album, and the coverage is there. Personally I don't think rock radio number-ones matter so much in 2024 (or any radio format, because everything is so online), but without that I would still find it notable enough. Ss112 06:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources both already in the article and presented above (albeit with some overlap between the two) are beyond sufficient. Left guide (talk) 06:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes ~~WP:NALBUMS~~ with the added sources above. cyberdog958^Talk 07:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I meant WP:SINGLE. cyberdog958^Talk 08:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, easily. Something is off about this nomination because all the reliable sources we need were already in the article at the time of nomination. I will try not to speculate on motives. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. Rlendog (talk) 17:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rlendog Which two to three sources above show the GNG beeting met? Mach61 19:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them are, if you interpret the guidance on secondary sources correctly. Sources derived from primary sources by independent authors are secondary sources. Rlendog (talk) 19:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is unanimous that the sources I listed contribute to meeting the GNG. This is silly. Nothing but the biggest of blockbuster songs would have articles if we went by your standard. What you're proposing is simply not in line with the community's interpretation of the notability standard. Sergecross73 msg me 01:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above, easily meets WP:NSINGLE given its high chart placements and coverage in reliable sources. JeffSpaceman (talk) 10:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Sergecross73. Those sources is good enough for WP:NSINGLE Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 11:41, 15 September 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.