Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Another Bag of Bones

:{{la|Another Bag of Bones}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Another_Bag_of_Bones Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Another Bag of Bones}})

No references, no claim of notability, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Prodded and prod removed. Richhoncho (talk) 09:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• MergeDelete or redirect to Kevin Devine#SinglesBrother's Blood or keep. An article isn't justified, but someone might just search for it. --Michig (talk) 11:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC) Two albums reviews that mention it briefly and a review of the single in an unreliable source still don't justify an article. --Michig (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Redirect to Kevin Devine#Discography or Kevin Devine#Singles. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC) Changed to Keep — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
• Keep - I added references to three independent reviews. Please try to improve missing references rather than delete, when possible! -- IamNotU (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
• Keep - Notability established by new sources. Please also consider redirect/merge WP:BEFORE bringing articles to WP:AFD. Editors have complained that my WP:DEPRODding wastes time. It is actually the nominations that ignore WP:BEFORE that is wasting time. ~Kvng (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
• Keep as at least this song article has some context and review references to pass WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
• Redirect as still not convincing for its own notable article, only best connected to the Kevin Devine. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - One problem with a merge to Brother's Blood, is that this version didn't actually appear on the album. The album version was a somewhat different arrangement and recording. And given the sources, I definitely don't think it's right to just delete and redirect. James Shotwell - who said "this may be the most important 7″ of the year" - might not entirely fit the definition of a "professional music critic", but Under the Gun Review isn't just some guy's blog either. I don't completely agree with it being an unreliable source (it's used in several hundred other Wikipedia articles), and the discussion about it wasn't unequivocal. Also it's really inaccurate to refer to the Punknews.org review (definitely a reliable source, which called it a "great song" and some of Devine's strongest work ever) as "an album review that mentions it briefly". It was written before the album was released, and is a fairly in-depth review specifically of the single. It's comparable in length to the reviews of another album and another EP, on the same page. PS, I'm not a "fan", just came here randomly... -- IamNotU (talk) 21:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

:{{ping|User:IamNotU}}. Good work on improvement to the article. The first "reference" is a dead primary source which probably needs to be removed. We are discussing an article about a song - not a specific recording (as per WP:NSONG), so your objection to a merge on those grounds is not correct.--Richhoncho (talk) 10:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

::{{ping|User:Richhoncho}}You're mistaken, the article is about a single release. The two main reviews are specifically of the single, and discuss both the A and B side recordings, neither of which appear on any album. The Brother's Blood album, with a different version of the Another Bag of Bones song, came out eight months later; the single isn't (and shouldn't be) linked to the album in the infobox, according to Template:Infobox single. I added an archive url for the dead link, and the catalog number of the single. One more thing, I added some material about Devine's version of "Love Me, I'm a Liberal", and a citation from the book "Singing for Peace: Antiwar Songs in American History", which discusses Devine's recording and cites the single release in the book's footnotes. -- IamNotU (talk) 21:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

::::{{ping|User:IamNotU}}. You say it's about a single, then add information about the song to justify your claim to keep. In fact if you are correct there is absolutely nothing notable about the single, any notability claimed is for the song itself. A can of beans is about the beans, not the can. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

:::::I don't understand the comment that it's an article about a song "as per WP:NSONG", it doesn't seem to say anything about it. WP:NALBUM above it lists a single as a type of recording. I've added another citation covering the single, from SPIN magazine. The reviews establish notability for both tracks, and many of the remarks apply to the package, such as the overall feeling, the arrangements, and the production quality. The main information about a release will naturally be about the songs, just as on an EP or album. But the article can also be expanded with information about the production, the recording session, the cover art, its relationship to the events of 2008, and so on, which is also relevant. To me this single is an independent and notable work by the artist, and is rather different from the typical "single from the album" in mainstream pop. I think it's more than just two unrelated songs that happen to be thrown together in a meaningless package for marketing purposes, any more so than an EP is. Is there some reason that it's unacceptable to have an article about a single release on Wikipedia? I don't see the necessity to split the article, nor to insist that the subject must be the one song, rather than the overall work. We don't need separate articles for each song, and it's common sense not to merge it with an album that came out nearly a year later, which doesn't actually contain either of the recordings from the single. -- IamNotU (talk) 04:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

::::::{{ping|User:IamNotU}}. I was responding to your words, "You're mistaken, the article is about a single release." which is more than a subtle difference. Yes, when a song is released as a single it can gain notability, release details can be added, but that does not detract from it being a song article. Otherwise all we have are discography entries which most certainly should be merged and/or deleted! Perhaps you should ping the remaining deletionists to show them the changes you have made to see if they will change their minds now. It's certainly a much better article. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

:::::::I honestly don't follow what you're saying. The article is and always has been about the single, or an "EP" with two tracks, until you changed the wording two minutes before you prodded it. In any case it doesn't seem relevant at this point, could be a discussion for the article's talk page. {{ping|Michig}}, {{ping|SwisterTwister}}, there are two reviews in reliable sources, plus the Under the Gun review - all covering the single, not the album - and a history book citation for the B-side. Any change in your position? -- IamNotU (talk) 11:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

:::::::::If you really believe it is about "a single" then remove everything you have added about "the song" and see how much is left and whether it is notable. It is a song. What is the problem? --Richhoncho (talk) 11:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

:::::::::I would be ok with keeping it. I'm still very unconvinced about Under the Gun Review's status as a RS, and a Punknews.org staff review, while acceptable as a source, doesn't really mean a lot re. notability, but there's enough other coverage around. We really should be able to have articles on singles - the insistance that every single should be written about as a song seems pretty nonsensical to me. --Michig (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.