Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalie (Bruno Mars 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 redirect to Unorthodox Jukebox. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 17:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie (Bruno Mars song)

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

This article doesn't represent a song that has had an impact on Bruno Mars' career or has ever been released as a promotional single. It only peaked on NZ Singles Chart for a couple of weeks, which is cited on the artist's discography. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Were you the one who tagged this for CSD earlier? It wouldn't fall under such a category. As the song did peak in New Zealand, I think that makes it notable. My !vote therefore is:

Keep --PatientZero ^talk 16:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my bad another user helped with that. If every song that peaked somewhere need an article all the songs would have articles, mainly with the streaming nowadays added to the charts. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If the song did peak on a country's national music chart (according to the nominator), it should pass WP:NALBUM and should therefore be kept. Whether a song has had an impact on a singer's career seems very much like a subjective criterion to me, and certainly not one of the determinants listed at WP:NMUSIC. --Dps04 (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is peaking on any nation's chart -- regardless of size or demographics -- sufficient for WP:NALBUM? Bearian (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1) "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created." → no reviews of the song without being the review of the album.

2) "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate 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." → I don't see how can anyone expand this article.

3) "Wikipedia's goal is neither tiny articles that can never be expanded nor articles based primarily on what the subjects say about themselves. → This is the case

With all of this being said, please carry on with more comments. Honestly some of these rules should be changed like the following: "Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts". Most of the songs nowadays will always chart due to huge streaming adjustments, in a couple off years. Wikipedia will be filled with "songs" that the only reason the article exists is because it charted somewhere due to huge streaming. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Unorthodox Jukebox. The non-primary sources are mostly reviews of the album, not reviews dedicated to the song itself. Because WP:NOPAGE is relevant here, a redirect to the album is appropriate. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect at best as I was going to type Keep, even though if this should be closed as Keep I'm acceptable for that, because regardless there's certainly no needs for actual deletion. SwisterTwister talk 17:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge – The topic has received some coverage (e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4], etc.), but not enough to qualify for a standalone article. A merge will serve to improve the target article and WP:PRESERVE appropriate content in the encyclopedia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per SwisterTwister. The "Composition" section of Unorthodox Jukebox mentions the song and would possibly be an appropriate place to selectively merge some of the content as per Northamerica1000 prior to a redirect. Virond (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2016 (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.