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 speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. I am instead going to nominate this for merging to The Bonnie Banks o' Loch Lomond. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 23:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Loch Lomond (Runrig song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

I could not find significant coverage of this single or its remix in reliable sources.

Regarding the sources cited, the Background and Recording sections are sourced to Rocking in the Norselands, which is a self-published source per its about page. The Commercial performance section is a description of what happened to the song on the charts, which are primary sources. The song and its remix's chart performance data are already in Runrig discography, so this article can be redirected there. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Scotland. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you being serious? Loch Lomond is one of the most significant songs in recent Scottish musical history. There are other articles on Wikipedia with much less information, coverage and significance with their own articles which have never been considered for deletion. Absolute absurd in my opinion. Goodreg3 (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I conducted a search for reliable sources before I first came to your talk page, and again before nominating this for AfD today. If it is indeed one of the most significant songs in recent Scottish musical history, then surely there are some sources that discuss it in detail. That there are other articles that have similar levels of detail is not a relevant consideration at AfD. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it is relevant consideration. What makes these articles any less noticeable than other articles with less information or the same level of information? The fact that each article charted on a national chart somewhere in continental Europe make them noticeable in some regard. If each had not chatted, then so be it, they are not notable, but charting is at least some degree of notability. Goodreg3 (talk) 22:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that charting is relevant in determining notability per WP:NSONG, which states that charting "suggest[s] that a song or single may be notable enough that a search for coverage in reliable independent sources will be successful" (emphasis in original). NSONG still requires significant coverage in reliable sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Define significant coverage? Unless you are major mega stars like Billie Eilish or Sabrina Carpenter these days, you don't particularly get a look in by the media these days, so I think perhaps we have to lower our expectations here particularly with releases from the 1970s, 80s and 90s. Goodreg3 (talk) 22:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NSONG very clearly explains what significant coverage looks like for a song or single:

Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries or reviews. This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work. Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created. (Endnotes omitted.)

I disagree that we have to lower our expectations here particularly with releases from the 1970s, 80s and 90s. Music journalism existed in those decades and music journalists reviewed singles in publications. There are also academic and popular publications on bands that discuss the development of songs in depth. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A primarily Scottish Gaelic performing band is not necessarily going to be on the international or state media agenda. I fully believe that the nomination of this article in particular is unjustified. Goodreg3 (talk) 23:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted above, if this song is as significant as you claim it is, surely Scottish music journalists and critics would have written about it. In establishing notability, we look at what reliable, secondary sources have to say, not the fact that a song sold a lot and got a lot of air time. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With every respect in the world to you, but I must point out that there are articles on Wikipedia that do just that, that they are "a song that sold a lot and got a lot of air time". I am certain if we conduced a search of each of these articles, there would be a high number that would come back that could fall under the banner of "unreliable" and "not significant". Goodreg3 (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A silver certification by the BPI, a re-released version charting in the UK Top 10 and number one in Scotland is not noticeable in your opinion? C'mon, are you serious!? Goodreg3 (talk) 22:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While you are at it, why don't you nominate articles such as "Wild in Your Smile" and "New Girl" for deletion? Considering they have the same level of information and what could be considered "notability"? Goodreg3 (talk) 22:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is an established consensus at AfD that we do not consider other articles in determining the notability of the article under discussion. I have not reviewed either of those two articles and I don't intend to. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps we ought to. I am merely pointing them out as a comparison for the intention of determining the same level of notability based on the information provided and number of references. Clear comparisons. So I struggle to see why the rules should apply to these recently created Runrig articles and not others. Goodreg3 (talk) 22:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article notability is not established through comparison of the sourcing or lack thereof in another article. The notability guideline states: "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvement to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." You might disagree with that guideline and think we should be comparing articles, but the long-standing community consensus is that we don't do that. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but I still disagree with the nomination of this article for deletion. Perhaps if you were from Scotland and not from New York (presumably), then you will under the significance a song like "Loch Lomond" has in modern Scottish culture. I have a feeling you will come back with another copy and paste from some Wikipedia guideline here, however, let's see what the wider community suggests. I fully believe that this article warrants its own article, in its own right, and has appropriate coverage and significance to justify it, not least by its success in two national charts. Goodreg3 (talk) 23:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To put on the record, I am 100% against the deletion of this article and therefore oppose the nomination. Goodreg3 (talk) 22:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.