Talk:Company (Justin Bieber song)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Company (Justin Bieber song) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Pop music Low‑importance

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Notability tag

@BlaccCrab: – I added the notability tag to the article because, at present, this article is severely lacking in sources that provide significant, encyclopedic coverage of the subject. There are chart positions present, but those also exist at Justin Bieber discography. If that is the sole reason why the song is notable then it can be merged with that. WP:NSONG says that 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 and that appearing on national record charts suggest that a song or single may be notable, (emphasis not mine) though a standalone article should still satisfy the aforementioned criteria of receiving substantial secondary coverage.

Please do not remove the tag again unless additional sources have been added. Chase (talk | contributions) 21:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend replacing the notability tag with the "incomplete" or "more sources" tag. The song is clearly notable, and yes WP:NSONG says that "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged", but I think it is likely this article will grow beyond stub status. At the end of the day, all of these tags are ways to encourage article development, but again, I don't think notability is the real concern here. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer: I fail to see how the song is "clearly notable" at the time of writing. Whether or not this grows beyond stub status, only time will tell. At present, the tag reads: The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for music. Please help to establish notability by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond its mere trivial mention. Easy way to have this removed. I would only add the 'incomplete' or 'more sources' tag if I see an array of sources that specifically address the song (that is, not a bunch of reviews of the parent album that mention it in passing). Chase (talk | contributions) 22:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's obviously notable you're wasting your time lmao BlaccCrab (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of taking up any time. It's a matter of having a tag on the article so that other editors can look for sources with which to improve this article. Your snarky, bad-faith remarks have no place here. Chase (talk | contributions) 23:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is a matter of taking up time because you placed a notability tag, not tags to improve the article (which someone else already pointed out). BlaccCrab (talk) 09:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As expected, it passed. Pleasure doing business BlaccCrab (talk) 07:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing "passed." Someone removed the tag again and I don't see the need to edit war over the issue. As this song is a current single and has the potential for more coverage to emerge, I don't plan to nominate it for deletion/merging at this time. Perhaps in the future I might. Chase (talk | contributions) 18:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]