442:
significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.
644:
would be the correct action to take. I think I understand that you and
Ironholds think the article should be saved, what I am not understanding is "Why?" - I'd like to see a well-written article on this song where I and every other reader can learn something about this song. All we have at the moment
536:
those charts. This is what I am trying to communicate to you :). The fact that you have not !voted does not make discussing this irrelevant - it means that discussing this is not necessary to "win", sure, but I consider a win to be "talking through the rationale and trying to work out who is wrong or
509:
You are arguing semantics which is unnecessary as I have not expressed any !vote in the matter. Your time would have been spent much better addressing the points I have raised in the article, if you think I have raised valid points. If you disagree with me, that's fine too. If you disagree with
441:
Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won
366:
Having re-read the MTV and
Billboard sources, I'm now of the opinion that they don't offer enough new information about the track to make the article into much more than a track listing. Its charting (in the very upper reaches of the UK chart) and potential future realease can be mentioned in
476:
Easy. Is number 176 in any chart actually notable? Does No 176 in any chart actually generate enough information to create a song article? Is the article about a song or a single? Is the entry actually an encyclopedic entry or is it a discography entry? Finally many song articles have been
413:
Charted and therefore notable. It has also been released as a digital download so the nomination is incorrect in stating that "The song has not been released yet". Apparently the
Christian market and the UK don't count for where songs may be released in the nominator's mind.
165:
338:. - this is not helped by the fact the EP and the track have the same name! However, there is a tiny amount of significant online coverage about the track - one is identified by Devin above. MTV have also said something about it
763:
Thanks to
Gongshow. You understood what I was saying. WP is a little more than a repository of discography entries. I note there's something in the links you gave that helps fill out "about the song" bit of a song article.
587:
notable, therefore the other parts of NSONGS kick in. Awards? Independent coverage? Can it be more than a stub? Presently the article is a discography entry, it tells nobody anything about "the song!" --
640:. Assuming that No 36 in the chart is notable, then why can't there be more information about the song? If there can't be, then the article must be a permanent stub, so deletion/merging according to
645:
is that it charted in 2 different charts - if that's all a song article meant to be we might as well delete all song articles and copy the charts because song articles are now irrelevant. Cheers. --
707:
246:
159:
724:
661:
118:
91:
86:
95:
569:
Alright, it also says "songs that have charted....are probably notable", but I think at this point it's clear we're talking past each other and not getting anywhere.
740:
78:
299:
and no guarantee it will any time in the very near future (unless it's released tomorrow to coincide with the start of their new tour... but that would also be
125:
444:
This song may have charted, but certainly not "ranked on a national or significant music chart" and there certainly isn't at present enough veriafiable for a
688:
and build a "reasonably detailed article". Sections on the song's background (e.g., originally written "four years ago" but didn't make the cut for
287:. There's not much there to establish notability now and no guarantee that it will be released in the future (the article you provide suggests it
555:
If we drop down to 176 (irrespective of which chart) then we are saying "Anything that has charted is notable." which is not what NSONGS says. --
180:
147:
396:. There's a lack of coverage of this track, and generally you merge/redirect to album or EP in such cases, assuming they are notable. --
723:: while it is about the EP overall, approximately 130 words discuss the song, and that's better than a passing mention, at least. And
699:
82:
141:
773:
755:
673:
654:
631:
596:
578:
564:
546:
523:
504:
486:
471:
457:
423:
405:
380:
357:
315:
278:
236:
211:
60:
17:
137:
74:
66:
187:
627:
419:
695:
794:
40:
495:" is not national or significant, not "can you explain how the position" does not lend itself to significance.
153:
401:
637:
623:
491:
None of those hypothetical questions actually answer my initial query, which was "can you explain how the
415:
698:; etc.) and music video can be created. And as far as the charts go, the song peaked at number 49 on the
790:
729:
703:
339:
312:
255:
233:
196:
The song has not been released yet. There's only talk about being released as a single later this year.
36:
636:
Not going to get into discussion if a particular chart is notable, but your words remind me greatly of
769:
650:
592:
560:
519:
482:
453:
283:
I get you. Strange wording perhaps. Thanks for clearing that up and for the link. Am leaning towards
574:
542:
500:
467:
173:
397:
393:
368:
335:
260:
720:
669:
477:
deleted/merged on notability grounds for songs that achieved much higher charting than 176. --
300:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
789:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
685:
641:
511:
436:
344:
304:
225:
765:
646:
588:
556:
515:
478:
449:
376:
353:
296:
273:
206:
570:
538:
496:
463:
292:
746:
735:
462:
Can you explain how the official UK singles chart is not national, nor significant?
694:; he finally presented a 90-second demo of the "old leftover instrumental idea" to
665:
54:
112:
719:
Other, less significant items (in terms of depth) can also be incorporated. This
347:
requires significant coverage, and this track probably tips towards 'notability'.
690:
448:
at present it is purely discography entry dressed up as an article. Cheers. --
372:
349:
265:
250:
198:
622:
s US Christian Songs is notable and it reached No. 36. Therefore notable. --
224:- so the song has been released but I think the film clip has not. Yeah?
551:
In which case you should be aware of the first two words of NSONGS...
528:
I don't disagree with WP:NSONGS, which discusses the importance of
783:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
222:"It was released as the lead single from the EP on May 15, 2012"
727:
that "Shooting Star" was intended to be the first single from
249:. The article, that was written on October 3, 2012, says that
263:
and in an album, but it's not yet been released as a single.
253:
is considering "Shooting Star" to be the next single off of
108:
104:
100:
712:) and chart info is enough to put me in the keep camp.
172:
662:
list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions
702:. The combination of coverage in reliable sources (
291:be but this is basically a rumour or a guess, so
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
797:). No further edits should be made to this page.
739:led to Owl City's management choosing the duet "
684:. I believe enough material exists to satisfy
186:
8:
660:Note: This debate has been included in the
537:right to better inform future discussions".
659:
514:that's a different matter altogether. --
583:Yes, it says "probably notable," not
532:, not the relative position of a song
7:
259:. The song has been released in an
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
75:Shooting Star (Owl City song)
67:Shooting Star (Owl City song)
774:16:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
756:08:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
674:22:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
655:18:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
632:18:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
597:14:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
579:14:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
565:14:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
547:13:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
524:12:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
505:12:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
487:12:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
472:11:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
458:16:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
446:reasonably detailed article,
424:15:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
406:10:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
381:11:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
358:10:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
316:03:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
279:03:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
237:01:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
212:00:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
61:00:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
814:
295:#5). Doesn't seem to meet
433:Response and comment only
786:Please do not modify it.
721:JesusFreakHideout review
32:Please do not modify it.
439:is necessary, it says,
733:until the success of
730:The Midsummer Station
256:The Midsummer Station
220:- from the article -
345:WP:NMUSIC#Recordings
435:. Familiarity with
394:Shooting Star (EP)
369:Shooting Star (EP)
336:Shooting Star (EP)
48:The result was
754:
676:
805:
788:
753:
750:
744:
725:there's a tidbit
309:
277:
270:
230:
210:
203:
191:
190:
176:
128:
116:
98:
57:
34:
813:
812:
808:
807:
806:
804:
803:
802:
801:
795:deletion review
784:
748:
745:
638:WP:NOTINHERITED
307:
271:
264:
228:
204:
197:
133:
124:
89:
73:
70:
55:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
811:
809:
800:
799:
780:
779:
778:
777:
776:
714:
713:
678:
677:
657:
624:Walter Görlitz
618:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
612:
611:
610:
609:
608:
607:
606:
605:
604:
603:
602:
601:
600:
599:
427:
426:
416:Walter Görlitz
408:
386:
385:
384:
383:
361:
360:
323:
322:
321:
320:
319:
318:
240:
239:
194:
193:
130:
69:
64:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
810:
798:
796:
792:
787:
781:
775:
771:
767:
762:
759:
758:
757:
752:
751:
742:
738:
737:
736:Call Me Maybe
732:
731:
726:
722:
718:
717:
716:
715:
711:
710:
705:
701:
700:Japan Hot 100
697:
693:
692:
687:
683:
680:
679:
675:
671:
667:
663:
658:
656:
652:
648:
643:
639:
635:
634:
633:
629:
625:
621:
598:
594:
590:
586:
582:
581:
580:
576:
572:
568:
567:
566:
562:
558:
554:
553:"Most songs."
550:
549:
548:
544:
540:
535:
531:
527:
526:
525:
521:
517:
513:
508:
507:
506:
502:
498:
494:
490:
489:
488:
484:
480:
475:
474:
473:
469:
465:
461:
460:
459:
455:
451:
447:
443:
438:
434:
431:
430:
429:
428:
425:
421:
417:
412:
409:
407:
403:
399:
398:Colapeninsula
395:
391:
388:
387:
382:
378:
374:
370:
365:
364:
363:
362:
359:
355:
351:
348:
346:
341:
337:
333:
330:
329:
325:
324:
317:
314:
311:
310:
302:
298:
294:
290:
286:
282:
281:
280:
275:
269:
268:
262:
258:
257:
252:
248:
244:
243:
242:
241:
238:
235:
232:
231:
223:
219:
216:
215:
214:
213:
208:
202:
201:
189:
185:
182:
179:
175:
171:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
139:
136:
135:Find sources:
131:
127:
123:
120:
114:
110:
106:
102:
97:
93:
88:
84:
80:
76:
72:
71:
68:
65:
63:
62:
59:
58:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
785:
782:
760:
747:
734:
728:
708:
689:
681:
619:
584:
552:
533:
529:
492:
445:
440:
432:
410:
389:
343:
331:
327:
326:
305:
288:
284:
266:
254:
247:this article
245:I was given
226:
221:
217:
199:
195:
183:
177:
169:
162:
156:
150:
144:
134:
121:
53:
49:
47:
31:
28:
743:" instead.
160:free images
766:Richhoncho
691:Ocean Eyes
647:Richhoncho
620:Billboard'
589:Richhoncho
557:Richhoncho
516:Richhoncho
479:Richhoncho
450:Richhoncho
301:WP:CRYSTAL
791:talk page
749:Gongshow
741:Good Time
709:Billboard
686:WP:NSONGS
666:• Gene93k
642:WP:NSONGS
571:Ironholds
539:Ironholds
512:WP:NSONGS
497:Ironholds
464:Ironholds
437:WP:NSONGS
328:Weak keep
37:talk page
793:or in a
696:Stargate
306:Stalwart
297:WP:NSONG
227:Stalwart
119:View log
39:or in a
293:WP:BALL
166:WP refs
154:scholar
92:protect
87:history
56:MBisanz
530:charts
313:(talk)
285:delete
234:(talk)
138:Google
96:delete
761:Keep.
493:chart
390:Merge
373:Sionk
350:Sionk
332:Merge
289:might
267:Devin
218:Query
200:Devin
181:JSTOR
142:books
126:Stats
113:views
105:watch
101:links
16:<
770:talk
706:and
682:Keep
670:talk
651:talk
628:talk
593:talk
575:talk
561:talk
543:talk
520:talk
501:talk
483:talk
468:talk
454:talk
420:talk
411:Keep
402:talk
377:talk
354:talk
340:here
303:.).
274:talk
251:Adam
207:talk
174:FENS
148:news
109:logs
83:talk
79:edit
50:keep
704:MTV
585:are
392:to
334:to
308:111
229:111
188:TWL
117:– (
772:)
764:--
672:)
664:.
653:)
630:)
595:)
577:)
563:)
545:)
534:on
522:)
503:)
485:)
470:)
456:)
422:)
414:--
404:)
379:)
371:.
356:)
342:.
261:EP
168:)
111:|
107:|
103:|
99:|
94:|
90:|
85:|
81:|
52:.
768:(
668:(
649:(
626:(
591:(
573:(
559:(
541:(
518:(
499:(
481:(
466:(
452:(
418:(
400:(
375:(
352:(
276:)
272:(
209:)
205:(
192:)
184:·
178:·
170:·
163:·
157:·
151:·
145:·
140:(
132:(
129:)
122:·
115:)
77:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.