Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lies (Rolling Stones 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. Spartaz Humbug! 21:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Lies (Rolling Stones song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This track by the Rolling Stones off their 1978 album Some Girls doesn't appear to warrant enough notability to have a stand-alone article. I believe it should be redirected to Some Girls. – zmbro (talk) 04:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- Comment, no. 5 of WP:NBOOK talks of the author being so meganotable that anything written by them is considered wikinotable, would it be drawing a long bow to suggest that the same could apply to anything by the stones (confession, big fan
)? Coolabahapple (talk) 06:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- For the Rolling Stones that probably works, since there are multiple books that cover all their songs in at least some detail. In the case of "Lies" there are those plus several pages of coverage in Patell's book (note a book, not an album review) The Rolling Stones' Some Girls.Rlendog (talk) 12:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not as familiar with the Stones as I am the Beatles or Bowie but I imagine authors have broken them down song by song. I just acquired Patell's 33&1/3 book so I know I'll be able to add info on each track in the album article. I know that some of the reviews found on Rock's Backpages actually talk about "Lies" a bit (some negatively), so that would work in the song article. In the context of things, anything the Stones made is considered notable, I primarily nominated this as (in its current state), it doesn't warrant enough info to have its own article. Just in my opinion. – zmbro (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- I can't say unequivocally that anything the Stones made is considered notable. But given the vast volume of material written about at least most of their songs, most if not all of their songs would meet the notability criteria of GNG or NSONGS. The standard for notability is the independent, reliably sourced material available and not just those in the current state of an article. Rlendog (talk) 13:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not as familiar with the Stones as I am the Beatles or Bowie but I imagine authors have broken them down song by song. I just acquired Patell's 33&1/3 book so I know I'll be able to add info on each track in the album article. I know that some of the reviews found on Rock's Backpages actually talk about "Lies" a bit (some negatively), so that would work in the song article. In the context of things, anything the Stones made is considered notable, I primarily nominated this as (in its current state), it doesn't warrant enough info to have its own article. Just in my opinion. – zmbro (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- For the Rolling Stones that probably works, since there are multiple books that cover all their songs in at least some detail. In the case of "Lies" there are those plus several pages of coverage in Patell's book (note a book, not an album review) The Rolling Stones' Some Girls.Rlendog (talk) 12:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. I think any song by The Rolling Stones would meet the standards of notability. (For the record, I’m neither a fan of the Stones, nor of rock/pop in general.) That said, the information contained in this article, while interesting, needs to be properly cited. Is there any source for its use in WKRP, for example? Are there books on the Stones which discuss the background of this song? —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep- Besides the Some Girls book, just going off my personal library (which I am sure is not complete in regards to books covering Stones' songs), "Lies" has a full page entry in The Rolling Stones: All the Songs, 2 paragraphs in Rip this Joint, at least 2 paragraphs in The Rolling Stones FAQ and a smaller, 1 paragraph entry in The Complete Guide to the Words and Music of the Rolling Stones. I'm sure there is more coverage out there but even if not this should be enough to meet GNG. Rlendog (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. While WP:NBOOK was cited above for inherited notability, per WP:NALBUM, singles explicitly don't inherit notability, so it must be shown that this song has notability itself. Not voting delete because other comments have mentioned sources that would satisfy this, if those sources could expand the article, and are not only in the context of coverage of Some Girls, then the article should be kept and expanded. But, per WP:NSONGS, "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Nangears (talk) 03:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- 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.