Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Save as Draft

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Save as Draft

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

Article fails WP:Notability (music)#Songs, which requires song articles to be covered in a fair amount of detail (not just a brief mention) in legitimate sources that aren't album reviews or based on artist/label/producer/songwriter commentary. Aside from one Idolator link already used, I can't find any good reference meeting all of the aforementioned criteria. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know that as the writer, my comment is pretty unimportant, but I just wanted to give my opinion here as well. I think the page is notable, keeping in mind that it charted and was submitted to US radios on its own. Regarding sources, it also received modest coverage in other languages (e.g. German; do a little Google News search and you'll see it) and the reason I used so few sources reporting of "Save as Draft" specifically is because I wanted to use strong ones – like Idolator. Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charts and radio release (or lack thereof) are irrelevant. If there are non-English sources outside of album reviews and comments from affiliated parties mentioned above that give more than a paragraph, then list them here for examination. Perhaps it's because I am a native English speaker who can't read much of other languages without a translator and have only been able to come up with English-language references, but the Idolator link was the only fitting source I could personally find. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While reviewing the resources, I found the following that appear to have some significant coverage/focus on the song aside from the Idolator source mentioned above: 1, 2, and 3. I am not sure if these sources are enough, but I just wanted to identify the sources that single out "Save As Draft" and are not album reviews. I would also suggest possibly looking through the album reviews to see how much space is devoted to this particular song as that could be helpful. I am not certain either way as I am pretty bad at figuring out notability (I always test notability by the amount of third party, independent coverage). Either way, hope you find these comments helpful, and I hope that both of you have a great rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ET Canada and Huffington Post (first two links) are based on KP's commentary, so those on their own aren't enough. I'm not sure how credible Jezebel (third link) is, but that does offer the unaffiliated depth I was looking for. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you mean by the first two sources; they are helpful for expanding the article, but not as helpful when dealing with proving notability. I would say that Jezebel is credible as it has a page on its website (here) that shows it has editorial oversight over its content and I have seen the site cited (in both positive and negative ways) by other websites. Sorry for intruding on this discussion and I hope you find this helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS::

[1] Idolator
[2] Entertainment Tonight Canada
[3] Pure Charts (in French)
[4] Klatsch–Tratsch (in German)
[5] POPLine (in Portugese)
[6] POPLine (2) (in Portugese)
[7] Mix 104.1
[8] PopCrush Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Idolator and Entertainment Tonight Canada (ET Canada) were already analyzed above. Pure Charts also somewhat goes into other album tracks as well as album sales (though isn't an album review), so it's harder to really measure that for depth on this track. Klatsch–Tratsch is based on artist commentary too, so no good for establishing notability either. Both POPLine links only give it a sentence. Not sure what to say about Mix 104.1 (especially when it goes into speculation), but PopCrush is a dubious reference that shouldn't be used per WP:WikiProject Albums/Sources. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to help with this discussion, here is another source about the song that are not present in the article: 1. Aoba47 (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is informative and deleting it would be detrimental. I think, in aggregate, the following coverage is enough to establish notability: Idolator, Jezebel, ET Canada, ~~Bustle.com~~, MTV Australia. The chart performance is relevant too - not in itself enough, but WP:NSONGS does say that charting suggests a song may be notable. As an aside, I'm glad this has now come to AfD. Redirecting the page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 times first, after different editors created it, was, in my view, too many. Mortee (talk)

Bustle is an album review and MTV Australia is largely based on artist commentary (so those don't establish notability), see my previous comments for assessments of other links. If Jezebel is in fact a legitimate reference, then we'd have something to go with the Idolator link as a piece that goes beyond brief mentions and isn't just artist/label/producer/songwriter commentary (essentially self-promotion) or an album review. At this point, I guess it really comes down to how appropriate Wikipedians find that as a source to use in articles. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about Bustle; that was a brain fart. I'm over-tired and thought it was about quotes in the song, rather than quotes in the album. I agree that the other sources aren't without issues, but in aggregate I think they add up to enough attention for it to be worth having an article. Mortee (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per charting in multiple charts, and sources dedicated to the song from high level sources like MTV and Huffington Post. Some of the sources are a little on the short side, but it's an oversimplication to just brush them off as "first party accounts because there's a lot of Katy Perry quotes". They're still third party articles, written by a journalist from a third party publication, and its not just a direct quote interview situation. Sergecross73 msg me 18:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is well written, it would be foolish deleting it. — MUST BE Love on the Brain. 15:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this article is not that bad. 333 -blue 14:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: The article appears to me to have enough coverage to support notability so I cast a keep vote for this as well. Aoba47 (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2018 (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.