# Talk:A Place in This World

In this edit, I added a notability cleanup banner to the article. And in my edit summary, I stated: I'm sorry to do this, but I do not think this song is notable. The only mentions of this song in reliable sources appear to be a couple of loosely tied sentences in rankings of Taylor Swift's entire discography, and per WP:SIGCOV, that just doesn't work. And due to the lack of certifications or charting (which can normally save articles like this), it also arguably fails WP:NSONG. I will be providing a more detailed rationale on my opinion on the articles talk page shortly. Here, I will be elaborating further on my rationale, as well as analyzing all of the sources. But first, I want to highlight my issues with the articles writing that makes me think it should not be a good article, since it is currently nominated.

The infobox genre is unsourced.
"Critics commended its songwriting" could easily be seen as false when every single critic opinion, all of which discuss is as part of Swift's discography as a whole, places it as one of her worst songs.
The entire first paragraph of the main article is not about the song at all, but rather giving context behind the album. I normally think that paragraphs like this are necessary and quite helpful to assist regular readers in understanding the articles subject, but there is a problem when it seems to be about a 5th of the entire article. I'm pretty sure its the largest complete paragraph in the article as well.
There are two sentences total that describe what the song actually is.
With the above concerns, I do not think that this article can possibly meet good article criteria 3, and to some extent, 2c. Now, I will go into depth about the article sources, which there's only 19.

All in all, only about 6/19 sources talk about the song for more than one sentences, and only 1 gives it anything that I would reasonably consider SIGCOV, that being #11. So reasonably, I think this article fails WP:GNG. Although, WP:NSONG exists, which is where a song article that may have some flimsy coverage could possibly be saved or given a slight edge. However, there are some parts of NSONG that I want to highlight that go against this article rather than in favor of it.

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. This article definitely does not have enough detailed sourcing to warrant being stand alone.
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.. And while this articles sourcing isn't primarily towards the album (and instead her whole discography), I want to say that I think this works against the strongest claim to notability I think this article has, which is source #11.
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. A lot of the information about this song in the sourcing is direct quotations or paraphrasing from Swift's own words.
Combine this with two more nails in the coffin: the lack of the song charting anywhere or receiving any certifications, and I think this article being helped out by NSONG in any regard is not possible. All in all, I find this articles sourcing to be extremely flimsy and fairly low quality, and I do not think it warrants its own standalone article. I suggest redirecting or merging it back into Taylor Swift (album). I also do not think it meets the good article criteria. I will also be courtesy pinging the articles main contributor, @Brachy0008:, as well as its Articles for Creation reviewer @SafariScribe: for their inputs on my concerns and if they think a redirect/merge is necessary. λ NegativeMP1 05:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

idk i just wrote a draft and it got accepted. i searched up lots of sources (my main article writing strat] brachy08 (chat here lol) 07:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
i would consider a redirect (i wiuld leave a copy of the article on my sandbox for debut tv) brachy08 (chat here lol) 08:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi, NegativeMP1, I'll try to expand the article in the next couple of days and I'll let you know when I'm done so you can take another look. In the meantime, I think the GAN should be removed so it won't be confusing to a reviewer that might want to pick it up, especially with the January backlog drive going on. Pinging Brachy0008 to share their thoughts. Medxvo (talk) 08:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
That would be nice to see, and I think that if sourcing for this song really does exist out there, you can probably fix it given your amazing work on other Taylor Swift song articles. I'm still hesitant on the notability part, but I'm open to having my mind changed. I also second your opinion that this nomination should be withdrawn in the meantime. λ NegativeMP1 09:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the kind words. I'll try to see what I can do, I think that this can be a reasonably detailed article with some work but let's see... Medxvo (talk) 09:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi, NegativeMP1. Would you like to take another look? I believe it's a reasonably detailed article at the moment. I've seen some similar articles, such as the FA–nominated article Vanishing (song), so I've took some inspiration from there. This can be expanded in the future with the release of Taylor Swift (Taylor's Version) as well, even though it looks good to me now. Medxvo (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
@NegativeMP1: My apologies for the double ping. Any update on this? Medxvo (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm very sorry, I did not see this message and I haven't been logged into Wikipedia on desktop all day. I'm going to be honest, I still don't really think this is notable. Your work on it to bring it back up to speed and actually let it have a decent article is commendable, but my concerns about it meeting WP:GNG or WP:NSONG still kinda apply. I will say that I don't personally have an issue with it anymore because I think it fights against point #1 pretty well now. λ NegativeMP1 07:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
No need to apologize, I just thought my first ping didn't go through or you didn't notice it so it's fine. I personally think that it is notable enough to warrant a standalone article based on some sources and the current state of the article, but I'm glad that you think it looks better now anyways. I'll remove the maintenance template for now and give it another try at GAN. I personally want to thank you for raising this issue, because without it I don't think I would've expanded the article at all. Hope you had a good day today! Medxvo (talk) 08:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)