Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoü and I: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 01:00, 12 May 2011

Yoü and I

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

The article has not charted in any major music market, has no lead or important background, recording or critical information. Can very easily be merged with Born This Way CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 07:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This song is basically like Speechless, which also is in the "Other songs" category. It has had live performances and coverage and has sufficient information to warrant keeping this page. calvin999 (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No dear, "Speechless" charted on a number of charts for to pass WP:N. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the sense that it is not a single but has had live performance and publicity, so yes.calvin999 (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is just a bunch of live performances, which is albeit a copy of material present in the parent album. There is a limit of the unnecessity and the uber fans creating everything and anything. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meet the normal criteria established by WP:NSONGS, and there is nothing exceptional enough to treat it as an exception case.—Kww(talk) 14:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. This article still has expanding to do with the sources already listed, those on the talk page, and others. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This does not even meet WP:GNG. Jivesh • Talk2Me 15:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Give it some time to flourish. --200.106.15.3 (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What? This is Wikipedia, not a music blog or gagapedia. I do not think it has enough information to remain. If you want it here, find more background, composition, critical reception, live performances, credits and personnel. Most importantly, organize the article's structure. Jivesh • Talk2Me 15:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on this currently, though I will need to be away from the computer soon. I invite other contributors interested in fleshing out the article to assist in any way possible. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hasn't charted. It isn't notable by any means. If it is released later as a single or something, we can write an article then. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 16:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : I would say let's wait until this one goes on chart. I think it's a well-developed article and don't want to see it removed. Iantolee (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator - Simply does not even come remotely close to passing Wiki: Songs.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is your input needed here? We already know where you stand, since you nominated the article and all... I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 22:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject has had plenty of independent coverage. It passes WP:GNG so I don't see why it won't pass WP:NSONGS.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't pass WP:NSONG. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 18:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Here's what it comes down to for me: there is a good deal of information in the article sourced to reliable sources that should reasonably be presented in Wikipedia. If this article were deleted, then large portions of the material would get pushed back to the article on Born This Way. That article, then, would be left heavy on the coverage of this song. It makes more sense to keep the information parallel and out in a separate article for the song. —C.Fred (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. So to not "over-load" one article, you create an entire extra article for a small amount of content. In the long run, your creating extra articles, work, and bulk (not to mention breaking the agreed upon rules) instead of just adding a few more KB to Born this Way, which is still, even in Legolas' sandbox, quite small and comfortable.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 19:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I agree with C.Fred. Certainly the information should not be deleted--even if consensus decides the article is not worth standing alone, a merge would be more appropriate. The article can be expanded further from the sources already used in addition to others that have not yet been added, and surely there will be more information to include (production details, reception, personnel, etc.) in less than two weeks once the album is released. --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, your using Wiki: Crystal here, you have no way of knowing what will happen to the song. Secondly, the song has been performed several times and still has almost zero coverage. We are not going to bend the rule because editors feel that the song will soon chart. If anything, it should be put in an incubator, and hidden away until it (if it does) achieves any charting or more information.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 19:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My argument has never been that the song will chart. My argument is that the song has received enough coverage to warrant its own article (which will not be given the opportunity to reach its full potential if the article is deleted). --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Whether or not a song charted should not be a determining factor as to whether or not we have an article on it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree on that point: using the notability test in WP:NSONGS plays an important role in not having millions of articles about album tracks. Nearly every album track will get mentioned in at least two reviews of the album, and people would want to use that as justification to create articles about every single one of them. What we have here is some trivial points about the song, and nothing that really even needs to be covered in the parent album article. The flip side of the problem is that people use charting as a pretext to create articles based on the argument "but WP:NSONGS says it's notable! It has to get an article!", but at least that's a bounded problem. Having articles on every album track in the universe is not.—Kww(talk) 01:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since it is currently not notable enough yet.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a chance to be notable, even though it already is. So obvious that it will chart anyway calvin999 (talk) 23:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it hasn't even been released yet. It is purely fan based and is not notable enough as of yet. --User:spiceitup08 —Preceding undated comment added 21:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Keep: The song has been performed to a record crowd on Today, on Oprah, on an HBO special, at Elton John's Tiara Ball, dozens of times on tour, covered on American Idol, and will be played again on American Idol tomorrow. All of these performances have second party coverage and have been referenced in reliable sources. There are 24 valid references in the article, merging this with the Born This Way album article would either cause an abundance of information towards this particular song, or alot of information to be lost. The song is from a notable artist, with a notable producer and features a highly notable guitarist, and the article is still under significant expansion. The creation of this article may have been premature, but so would be it's deletion.

Or, to be really anal about this, the article could be placed in the incubator until it charts in a few days. Bruce Campbell (talk) 01:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A standalone article on a song that hasn't been released yet DOES seem a little premature to me. Will it chart? Almost certainly. Will it deserve (i.e., have earned) undisputed notability moments afterwards? Again, I feel a "yes" coming on. And will it then deserve a full article? Again, I think "yes." But I am concerned about encouraging other editors to fill Wikipedia with articles about other songs by other artists which have not "yet" gone anywhere (has anyone noticed the proliferation of articles about Ukrainian footballers? They each have their own article, and my proposal for deletion based on a single citation in a foreign language for any of them has been successfully disputed). I am not swayed by the "give it a chance" argument-- that is what sandboxes are for, for incubation. Articles should only be in Wikipedia when their topic has achieved the required public status, not in anticipation of that status. But once that status has been achieved, then by all means. Do not merge, there will be no point. Hold off a couple of days/ weeks, out of respect for the process. KDS4444^Talk 03:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep contains heavy metal ümlaüts \µ/ --MoonLichen (talk) 05:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

What?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 06:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(He's making a kind of clever joke regarding diacritic marks-- that's all.) KDS4444^Talk 07:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content to Born This Way. There are some decent sources here, but the article is rather short. I don't see why the information can't be covered in the parent article. Dimadick (talk) 07:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep the article doesn't need to pass WP:SONGS if it passes WP:GNG which, with all the refs in this article, it easily does. Robman94 (talk) 21:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Born This Way - song has not charted, or even been officially released. ℥^nding·start 23:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Born This Way" - the article should be rewritten as a short paragraph so that the available information is not lost, but I agree that there is too much detail on a yet to be released song. It's too soon for a full article. If there is any concerns about the sources and content being lost, then some of it could be kept on the Talk page for Born This Way so that it could then be used as source for a new article if needed. 189.216.23.144 (talk) 01:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 23:34, 11 May 2011 edit Status (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors 69,279 edits No edit summary ← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:00, 12 May 2011 edit undo 189.216.23.144 (talk) →‎Yoü and I Next edit →
Line 59:		Line 59:

	*'''Redirect''' to ''Born This Way'' - song has not charted, or even been officially released. <font size="3%"><font color="578bc7">'''℥'''<sup>[[User:Ending-start\|<font color="578bc7">nding</font>]]·[[User talk:Ending-start\|<font color="578bc7">start</font>]]</sup></font></font> 23:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)		*'''Redirect''' to ''Born This Way'' - song has not charted, or even been officially released. <font size="3%"><font color="578bc7">'''℥'''<sup>[[User:Ending-start\|<font color="578bc7">nding</font>]]·[[User talk:Ending-start\|<font color="578bc7">start</font>]]</sup></font></font> 23:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

			*'''Merge''' to ''Born This Way" - the article should be rewritten as a short paragraph so that the available information is not lost, but I agree that there is too much detail on a yet to be released song. It's too soon for a full article. If there is any concerns about the sources and content being lost, then some of it could be kept on the Talk page for Born This Way so that it could then be used as source for a new article if needed. [[Special:Contributions/189.216.23.144\|189.216.23.144]] ([[User talk:189.216.23.144\|talk]]) 01:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)