Talk:Never Know

This article was nominated for deletion on 17 February 2022. The result of the discussion was keep.

Sources

Sergecross73 msg me 03:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 February 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) Colin M (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Never Know (Bad Omens song) → Never Know – This is the only subject under this title with an article (Never Know used to redirect to the Jack Johnson album In Between Dreams, but that is a non-notable album track). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 14:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Article creator here. I'm okay with whatever. Honestly, I think I didn't do a thorough enough check back then - there's a bunch of "Never Know (artist song)" out there, so I assumed this was the correct approach, but upon a closer look they're all redirects. Sergecross73 msg me 15:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The dab page in the hatnote provides navigation to the other songs that, while perhaps not notable enough for their own page, should still be searchable through their albums. But under our guidelines there is a clear primary topic here of this song over the other subjects that aren't notable enough for their own page.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, appears to be unambiguous. 162 etc. (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, but move disambig to primary - I strongly feel the Bad Omens song article doesn't meet notability guidelines WP:NSONG for inclusion, and should probably just be merged to the album article (per "Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only 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." NSONG recommendation). By comparison, the Bad Omens song 'Limits' on the same album charted higher and stayed on longer, and we don't have an article for that song. Mediocre charting does not alone demonstrate notability. As such, I'd prefer to see the disambiguation retained at primary. Added: note to closer, regardless of how this closes, please move the history of the current primary Never Know to Never Know (Jack Johnson song) because that's the topic it was initially created for. -- Netoholic @ 03:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Limits" has no bearing on this songs notability. The only reason this song has an article and Limits doesn't is strictly because I personally chose to create one over the other. They're both notable. The problem is just that the band doesn't have any editors interested in creating content related to it. They also don't have any album articles, even though they're notable too. They're merely an up and coming band with little Wikipedia interest at the moment. Sergecross73 msg me 04:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is textbook what not to do per WP:NSONG: 4 refs about the song that are minimal "press release" style info (no reviews) from music sites FAR from the mainstream, 1 interview article about the album as a whole (not a review and, again, not a mainstream music news site), and of course the single ref mentioning mediocre "Mainstream Rock" chart performance (not Top 100 or similar). You sound like a fan, and I sympathize that a topic you enjoy doesn't get much help from other Wikipedians, but that fact in itself might point to lack of notability. Neither this or 'Limits' is independently notable, and the right option would be to merge this song article into an album article (which I just noticed also doesn't even exist yet), and put the disambig at primary to help others find this and other album articles containing songs with this title. -- Netoholic @ 13:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But going back to WP:NSONG, the song is notable because it is a charted single. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 13:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Erpert: Nah, you didn't read the guideline related to charting: "Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. (Note again that this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable.)" - bolded for clarity. The particular chart it ranked on is very genre specific, and it didn't chart high or long on it anyway. -- Netoholic @ 14:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, you're setting the bar a bit high there for this content area. Its rare that any song receive things like dedicated reviews. Very common for things like albums, movies, or video games. Not common at all for songs. That's why there's no review aggregators for things like songs. (No song Metacritic, Rotten Tomatoes, etc.) Anyways, what's important is that it charted on a major chart. (Yes it's genre specific, but it's still a major genre, in what's pretty much the largest music market in existence - the US. This is not "US bias", I'm merely pointing out its objectively the biggest music market, and as such, most noteworthy when its charting.) And it received third party dedicated sourcing. Sergecross73 msg me 17:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no content about the song to draw from, then per WP:NSONG it falls under "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album". You should make the artist or album article better with this content, not try to defend a bad stub. -- Netoholic @ 20:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm no stranger to merging and redirecting song articles. I frequently push for it, or just do it boldly. And I'm totally with you with those sorts of stubs that just have a single sentence and two refs or something. That's the sort of thing that needs to be merged into album articles. But I found some things to say about this one, so I disagree with your assessment with this time. Sergecross73 msg me 21:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion covers some quite reasonable questions, but is really more for AfD than this move discussion. If we determine there are NO subjects at this name notable enough for their own page, we should certainly reassess, but for the purposes of the move discussion we do have a page.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfD wouldn't apply here because the discussion isn't really about the notability of the subject. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 12:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed Yaksar was referring to Netoholic in that comment, not you. As in, pointing out that Netoholic is arguing AFD discussion points in a move discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 12:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the disambiguation page was moved to Never Know a few days ago -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.