Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Contaminated (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. Although there was some interest in a redirect, consensus is to keep the article which was improved during the course of the AfD. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Contaminated (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)

With the song only drawing coverage from one source a few sources: Rolling Stone, [2], and only making one sub-chart, I'm not sure it passes WP:NSONGS or WP:GNG. More than a year after its release, it is still unlikely to ever be improved out of its stub status. NØ 03:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Coverage in Billboard and Paper Magazine not used in article, but I'm not sure it will expand beyond a stub even with them. Heartfox (talk) 04:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding these. The first source provides just one sentence of coverage, "On Wednesday (July 10), she unveiled 'Contaminated,' a heavy synth-based melody juxtaposed by the songstress' signature airy vocals to detail the draining and heartbreaking process of being with someone not healthy for you", and the Paper one seems to have been a website-exclusive premiere (thus not really a secondary source). With III (Banks album) also being a relatively short article, I still think this could be comfortably accommodated there.--NØ 05:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Redirect to III (Banks album). Heartfox (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even after the expansion I still think it could just be converted into three or four sentences in the album article, which is quite underdeveloped. Heartfox (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – I added the mentioned sources above and several others I found. I believe the article now demonstrates notability. Carbrera (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep or redirect - Keep, or redirect to III (Banks album). --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article does have sources, but I am uncertain whether the sources satisfy this requirement of NSONGS: The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the song/single. So far I am only seeing skimming-through mentions of the song. HĐ (talk) 04:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• To note, I am completely okay with such sources as long as the article is reasonably detailed beyond stub-class, but without being overtly detailed. HĐ (talk) 04:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is a charted single, so it passes WP:NSONG. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 18:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per WP:HEY. Article is good enough to pass WP:NSINGLE. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:30, 25 February 2021 (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.