Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celestial (Ed Sheeran 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Celestial (Ed Sheeran 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)

I had previously BOLDly BLAR'd this article, redirecting and merging content to Pokémon Scarlet and Violet. This was reverted with a request to take this to AfD, hence this nomination. My rationale for the original BLAR was because of a sheer lack of significant coverage on this song. There are quite literally no sources discussing impact or popularity, whether that be in the form of reviews, editorial pieces, or just opinion pieces. All that exists are news pieces discussing its announcement, and the bulk of these are primarily within the span of the first two weeks following its reveal, showing a notable WP:SUSTAINED issue, as all sources after that are announcements over its remix in the DLCs (Which don't really say that much beyond confirming that it exists and nothing more), trivial mentions, or mentions in unreliable sources.

While it's charted a lot, per WP:NSONGS, this does not outright indicate notability, only that there may be a chance at notability. The content here is relatively small, with the bulk of this article's text just being charting and release information. Per WP:NOPAGE, "Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page," and " Sometimes, several related topics, each of them similarly notable, can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page" Pokémon Scarlet and Violet's article contains information on the entire soundtrack of the game, of which Sheeran's song is included. It is overall more helpful to readers to be able to read about information relating to Celestial in a section that also covers other associated music, allowing them to get an understanding of the wider context surrounding this song, while not needing to go to a separate, unneeded split to get a full understanding of the game's soundtrack.

As a result of the above points, I don't see why this article meets individual, standalone notability, and I believe it is better off merged into Scarlet and Violet's article, where its information can be preserved and better appreciated by readers. The contents of my previous merger, as well as an additional merger of some content at the request of Ss112, who reverted my initial BLAR, are present at SV's article at present, which should help illustrate that this article is small enough to where its content can be slotted into an article subsection. While charting is not yet present, this can likely be added without being a detriment to page length by including drop-down menus that can be expanded by reader choice. I hope this helps clarify my rationale for my prior BLAR, and my current rationale for believing this is not suited for a standalone article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Video games. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Ss112, who reverted my BLAR, to offer their thoughts on this. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I am very aware of WP:NSONGS and quote it regularly myself, charting this extensively—making the top 10 in the UK, the top 40 in Europe and other regions, appearing on multiple year-end charts, and being certified in at least four countries, along with the already present media coverage—makes this a truly baffling BOLD redirect and nomination. Redirecting to a Pokémon article makes it appear that the extent of its existence is being made for those games and that it achieved nothing else, and that's clearly not true. There is also still media coverage on this, and as stated at the nominator's talk page, I do not believe what is on the article at present is the extent of it. Songs also don't need to have continuing nor "sustained" relevance let alone an "impact" in the current day to have been notable in the year of their release—I don't know what that's about. WP:SUSTAINED states that short bursts of news coverage "may not sufficiently demonstrate notability", but as stated, the perhaps meagre news coverage at the time of its release is not all the song achieved nor is the extent of its notability. Ss112 18:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have clarified that I have done several BEFORE searches on this subject. This is almost certainly the extent of the coverage, at least in terms of what I could find. Almost every source I could find stated mostly the same things about release information, namely that it was made by Ed Sheeran and was featured in and made for a Pokémon game. What other information I could find was charting information and the like cited here.

Perhaps it's due to a difference between how the music side of Wikipedia handles subject notability and how I'm used to it in my subject areas, but to me SUSTAINED coverage is needed to show that this subject had a long-term impact beyond the scope of its release. The lack of real coverage I discussed in my nomination makes that difficult to see. Additionally, I feel your argument isn't really fulfilling Wikipedia:Verifiability. We need sources to verify that this song had a lasting impact, and we need sources to show those charting numbers have an impact beyond being just numbers on a list. It all comes down to sources, and these are sources that I could not find during my search per what I have already clarified in my nomination. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't feel that "my argument" fulfils WP:V? What do I need to verify in what I said? Songs do not need to have a "lasting impact" to be notable enough for Wikipedia, but as pointed out by QuietHere below, the song appears on multiple year-end lists, meaning it has had sustained success for at least two years in several regions. Oh, but those are meaningless "numbers on a list" and we should redirect to a Pokémon video game article—righto. Three keep votes and counting. Continuing to argue with everybody who disagrees does not help. Like you said, you really do not understand music notability and you've proven that twice now. Ss112 06:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per below discussion, you haven't provided any sourcing actually verifying that these numbers on charts mean anything. I've read and familiarized myself with Wikipedia:NSONGS before this discussion when formulating my rationale, and it says that these charts are only an indicator of notability, and don't actually provide it; this means that they need significant coverage to back them up, and there is very little in the way of Wikipedia:SIGCOV (As shown by Kung Fu Man below) that justifies why this needs the separation I specified with my Wikipedia:NOPAGE argument. We need sources illustrating that this song is notable to back up what charts exist, hence my WP:V argument, and we need them to show this song and its charts had an impact beyond just basic announcements, as those are just Wikipedia:ROUTINE news coverage that do not count toward subject notability. I hope this clarifies what I mean a bit. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then that comes down to how one defines "trivial". I personally don't find the coverage that exists on "Celestial" on the article and out there at present to be "trivial", although I conceded above that it might be considered "meagre" by some. WP:NSONGS also literally says "songs and singles are probably notable" if they have been the subject of these works, not that they are only notable when they have been the subject of said works. There is also notability besides charting—it has been certified. That is not covered by the first point of NSONGS, as certifications are neither "music or sales charts" nor are they always tied to such. I am not going to agree with you. I already know what your point is so it is immaterial to me how much you continue to clarify your point. Ss112 18:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per charting and certifications. If you're concerned about SUSTAINED, it is worth noting that the charts span multiple years, meaning it appeared on those charts for at least a few months. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the number of national charts here is astounding. Songs don't chart like this globally and then fail to scrounge up a handful of GNG-satisfying sources. It's near logistically impossible. Sergecross73 msg me 00:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:SOURCESMUSTEXIST. I did multiple Wikipedia:BEFOREs for this and turned up nothing. I'm not making this rationale assuming there's no sources, I genuinely found nothing beyond what I mentioned in my nom. If significant coverage large enough to satisfy both notability and Wikipedia:NOPAGE is found, then I'm willing to withdraw, but I make this nom only out of a severe concern for a lack of actual coverage outside of its charts, which don't indicate notability. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This album charted in 20+ counties and went Gold in 4 of them. That's extremely mainstream. I'm trying to think of a video game equivalent so you can understand how unlikely of a scenario what you're proposing in this nomination is to the music Wikiproject members. Probably the equivalent of nominating a Bravely Default or a Paper Mario level-game for deletion. Sergecross73 msg me 01:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point of confusion there is that with games there's still at least something, you know, *said* in terms of analysis, reaction or at least anything. Even with games, just winning an award alone would mean as much as the reviews discussing the title. It's jarring to see it in contrast to the hurdles with fictional characters, where the closest parallel to it would be "did you see how much media that character appeared in? They must be notable!"

Why is charting alone sufficient when we demand so much more from every other aspect related to the video game project?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that charting alone is enough, it's just the logistical absurdity in situations like this, where a song is a global hit, but editors think that there aren't a few articles out there somewhere. Maybe a more apt comparison is when misguided editors talk about nominating video game icons like Mario or Sonic for deletion because they chose to ignore their obvious massive legacy in favor of a poor Google search result? (That's probably a bit generous to Sheeran's song here, but still.) Sergecross73 msg me 10:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Serge, that's just WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST though, isn't it? But with what I was able to find at all, that's just enough for barely a paragraph, and all of it ties to Scarlet and Violet.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I love citing that essay too, but I don't think it should be a substitute for using common sense either. How does a song get played prominently in 20+ countries, get certified Gold in 4 separate countries, and make multiple year-end charts, and not have 2-3 sources written about it? It's logistically impossible. I think this is one of those situations where nominators get so caught up in the letter of the policies/guidelines that they forget the actual purpose of what we're trying to do here. When we create guidelines to prevent trivial, non-notable items of music from having articles, were they really trying to eliminate content like this? Are we really saying that a massive pop star collaborated with arguably one of the biggest franchises in existence, and its output, while a global commercial success, isn't notable? I don't like invoking WP:IAR, but if the guidelines miss the mark this badly... Sergecross73 msg me 17:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that Bravely Default and Paper Mario actually have significant coverage attached to them. I can Google one of their games and find tons of reviews, information on the game's development with a bit of digging. I've dug a fair bit into this subject and already told you about the results. Notability cannot be assumed from statistics; this argument so far has come across to me as an argument of "It has to be important," rather than something actually grounded in any form of guideline or policy. If notability came from solely statistics, then BFDI would have an article by now with how many views that series has racked up on Youtube.

Just because it's unlikely or seems inconceivable doesn't mean it can't happen. I'd recommend doing a BEFORE before making assumptions on the subject's breadth of coverage, as if there is actually coverage I missed, then you'd be able to more effectively disprove some of my arguments, which mostly hinge on the breadth of coverage I have already discussed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know of that difference, it was just a reference point, not a 1:1 comparison. Sergecross73 msg me 10:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pokemon Scarlet and Violet. Doing a hard dig found really not a whole lot for discussion: a review by the Harvard Crimson, though this is a student paper. There's also three links ([1] [2] [3] that discuss Toby Fox remixing it for Pokemon Scarlet and Violet, one of the first mods for that game removing it, and people getting DMCA'd because it's the end credits song. The rest is just announcements about the song and video with some breakdowns of the video, but no commentary for notability. Additionally couldn't find discussion observing it on the charts. While there can be a reception section built here, it really hinges a lot on whether the Harvard Crimson is usable as a source.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't accept The Harvard Crimson as a source, because students are not music critics. Regardless, I do not feel that we need a reception section. Ss112 06:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Without it then we have a WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST argument that isn't held up, as there's barely enough meat here for 3 sentences tying it to a video game, and a light blurb about inspiration. That's not a lot of indication of stand alone notability in practice. Even the one Rolling Stone reference I found said little. Notability needs to be demonstrated, not just assumed.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I'm going to go with a merge; all the arguments up here as I pointed out rely on "it charted heavily, so there must be sources, so it's notable". While on paper that sounds feasible, we've seen plenty of cases with other subjects such as fictional characters where it is not i.e. (Diddy Kong, Odie), and as stated above the material that does show notability is tied directly to those games.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've spent so much time arguing the absurdity of the nomination that I hadn't bothered digging into the sourcing. Not sure if this is another case of setting the bar too high? Because I'm seeing pretty mainstream coverage.

Granted, they're not the deepest of dives, but they're dedicated articles by extremely reputable sources approved by WP:VG/S, WP:RSMUSIC, and WP:RSP, and that's all that the GNG requires. Sergecross73 msg me 20:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NSONG with significant national charting मल्ल (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I realize that continuing to debate solely about sourcing is just going to wind up with a lot of mixed and very heated opinions, so I feel it best to change gears to the other major concern with this article: size. I do feel the WP:NOPAGE rationale I addressed above has been sidelined a bit by the sourcing discussions, and it does address both sides' concerns, and may be a viable way of addressing this in a bit more cut and dry manner. I've outlined my NOPAGE concerns above already, so I don't see a need to restate them again, but this would preserve literally all of the page's information, without losing anything in the process, in a section where it can be adequately discussed alongside other music relating to SV. This article is unlikely to expand further and perfectly coverable in another page, so why not cover the information there? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but notice your user page suggests you're working on a Pokemon WP:GOODTOPIC. While I appreciate when the GA/GT process motivates editors to improve content, I equally strongly oppose editors attempts to use it as a rationale to delete articles. So if that is what this is all about, I object to its deletion/merger even stronger. I find that approach to be highly contradictory to the prospect of building an encyclopedia. The GA/GT process is not a metric for subjects having stand alone articles. Sergecross73 msg me 02:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just agree with notability standards that are applied site wide that I believe should be upheld. I'm working on Pokémon Good Topics, but if a topic doesn't pan out, it doesn't pan out. Even a brief view at my user page shows that the topic I'm most actively working on isn't even related to Celestial, so I don't see how these two things are even correlated unless you want to directly accuse me of unfounded claims that I'm acting in bad faith. Directly opposing my suggestions solely on a bad faith assumption is an even worse standard to uphold, especially as a site administrator. Please keep this strictly to policy-based discussions, and if you want to accuse me of bad faith, please do so on my talk page, as this kind of thing is not within the scope of this AfD. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed countless other reasons why I object to this absurd nomination beyond this hypothesis. This was merely an attempt to get understand why you're pushing so hard on this, as I do run upon this misguided mindset on occasion. If it's not true in your case, then so be it, everything else I said still stands (along with everyone else so far.) Sergecross73 msg me 10:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the BBC and Rolling Stone sources above are enough for this to meet WP:GNG and this charted across the world besides. Deletion is not necessary imho. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources listed above are more than enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 12:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per others, it does seem notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:40, 29 October 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.