Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Better Get to Livin'

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The result was Keep, withdrawn. Non-admin closure. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Better Get to Livin'

[edit] Better Get to Livin'

Better Get to Livin' (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

non-notable, low peaking single, doesn't deserve to an article Caldorwards4 (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I withdraw this AfD since plenty of sources have been added. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Not all charting songs are notable on their own. WP:MUSIC says only make a separate page if there's enough info for a separate page. This article is short enough that it can be merged to Backwoods Barbie. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment : The article was created just three days ago... It's logical that it is a stub. As a rule, we don't merge all stubs, but we let them much more time to be expanded. Europe22 (talk) 11:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Still, the song also needs to be notable, and since it did not reach the top 40 of the country charts -- typically we use Top 25 criteria unless there's a wealth of reliable sources -- this song fails WP:N. Spell4yr (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Backwoods Barbie per nom. Spell4yr (talk) 03:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - I think it is notable because it is her first country single in years and even if it didn't chart too well, it was still like a "comeback single" and anyways, sry about undoing whatever 10pndHammer... I was trying to help CloversMallRat (talk) 06:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This song was fairly notable. Got lots of airplay and video play when it came out. Was considered something of a "comeback single" as some other commentators have mentioned. I've added some more info and references to fill it out a bit. Kaldari (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - The song peaked at #48 on the country charts -- that hardly qualifies it as having "lots of airplay", and would reflect a lack of notability using current Wikipedia country music standards. As stated above, we typically only include Top 25 singles unless they achieve notability by other means (Not Ready to Make Nice is a good example). Which reminds me, I need to redirect Invisibly Shaken, as I assumed it would hit top 25 when it was released but it appears that it won't go above #43. Spell4yr (talk) 04:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • What are these "Wikipedia country music standards" you mention? On Wikipedia:Notability (music) it says that "songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts... are probably notable." Kaldari (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
They're unwritten rules that typically govern what songs we have pages for. "Never Mind Me", for example, was an article I created for Big & Rich's song, but it was later redirected to its album because it only peaked at #34. We typically redirect anything lower than #25 as hundreds of songs chart every year, and if we included pages on every one of them, there would be a lot of unnecessary kilobytes. Wikipedia is not a country music wiki.
Do I think it's a good song? Yes, I do. But I don't feel it satisfies the notability for country music articles that has evolved over the last few years. Spell4yr (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying we need to have articles for every country song, but surely we consider more than just chart position! Apparently the video for this song was pretty popular (according to the director), and the fact that it's the first (and highest charting) single from her "comeback" album should count for something. Just my two cents. Kaldari (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
For the record, her video currently has 250,000 views. Big & Rich's Between Raising Hell and Amazing Grace has 400,000 views, and Eric Church's Lightning has 180,000 (the latter in less time than Dolly's video), and neither of those has pages. Video popularity is still not a great indicator of notability. We'll have to agree to disagree on this point. I think some of the pertinent info from the page should be worked into either Backwoods Barbie or Dolly's article, incorporating the YouTube/"comeback single" information (if we can find a reliable source calling it a comeback). Spell4yr (talk) 04:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
There are lots of sources calling the album a "comeback", don't know about the single though. In the case of the Big & Rich and Eric Church songs, I think they lose points by virtue of the fact that those artists are not very historically significant. Look at our Beatles and Bob Dylan coverage for example. We have articles for virtually every song they ever created, even if they were completely ignored at the time. I'm not saying that Dolly Parton is as historically significant as Bob Dylan, but her career is certainly a lot more important than that of Big & Rich. For an artist of Parton's importance, I think it makes sense to try to have more than the baseline level of coverage. I'm sure in a few decades (or years even) there will be books about Dolly Parton's life and career that will mention this song, and thus provide even more material for a good article. I can't say the same for Eric Church's "Lightning". Kaldari (talk) 15:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I still think the material, even if more comes out in the future (which seems to be a little bit of a crystal-balling assumption), can be incorporated into either her page or the album's page, as typically country music legends haven't been given the Beatles/Dylan treatment with their songs. This may be something to undertake in the future, if there is consensus that artists like Parton, Johnny Cash, George Jones, and others should have more extensive information, but based on precedent I cannot change my vote. I am wondering if Caldorwards4 or TenPoundHammer, or anyone who hasn't voted would like to share any thoughts in this discussion, as I think Kaldari and I have had a really good discussion on this, but I would like some other viewpoints to see if maybe I'm being too narrow-minded here. Spell4yr (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I think that the page contains sufficient content for a standalone article now. Never mind that it didn't make Top 40; the song received enough coverage in reliable sources that it would be too much info to simply merge back into the main album page, which is fairly detailed in its own right (at least for a page on a country album). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
As I seem to be in the minority now, I withdraw my redirect vote and will instead abstain. Spell4yr (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for being so considerate and reasonable. BTW, I just found one more reason why the song is notable: It was the first single released by Parton's own record label, Dolly Records. Kaldari (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
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.