Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Screwed (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 - well, just about a consensus, as many of the "keeps" are weak ones. But nowhere near a consensus to delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Screwed (song)

I applied a PROD to this article, but it was removed with no explanation. The song was rumored to be the first single off of Paris Hilton's debut album, but then it wasn't. It was briefly rumored to be the second single, but then it wasn't. There are now no confirmed plans to release this as a single, and it has done nothing to establish itself as an album track of encyclopaedic notability. GassyGuy 04:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, as much as I read these, I don't nominate articles very much. In case there's confusion, among other guidelines, I'm accusing this of violating WP:NOT a crystal ball. GassyGuy 04:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. "was planned," "was rumored" Is unsourced. Even if verifiable, which is doubtful, nobody cares about a single that could have happened but didn't. (And isn't "notable Paris Hilton song" an oxymoron, or am I being unkind?) Fan-1967 05:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The leak and remix, and the disagreement over the rights with Hailie Duff, make the song slightly more notable than an average album track. VoluntarySlave 05:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Thousands of songs have disagreements over rights; that doesn't make them notable. -Amatulic 20:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Agreed with User:VoluntarySlave that the circumstances surrounding this single make it somewhat notable. Sort of on the fence, and the fact that it's by an undisputably notable artist pushes me to the "keep" side. -Elmer Clark 02:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not a single. It's not even an aborted single. It's a song that was rumored to be a single but never came to fruition. What circumstances? That it was leaked? Entire albums often leak in this day and age, but the songs on them don't all become notable. That they had trouble clearing the rights for it? Can you imagine how many hip hop songs would become automatically notable if problems clearing rights equated with notability, given the amount of sampling etc. that is done? GassyGuy 03:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. But the only other circumstance where artists fought over a song was over Mariah Carey's "Loverboy" and Jennifer Lopez' "I'm Real" (well, technically, they fought over a loop), and that was certainly notable. And it's not about clearing rights for it because of a sample, so I don't know where the comparison is there. And it IS an aborted single; why else would radio stations have received promos? The leaked version was played on a major radio station (I believe in LA), and remixes were done for the song as well. Remixes usually aren't done for album-only tracks. So this must have been planned as a single, at least for a while. In any case, my vote is...

to keep the page...I guess a weak keep. There was a lot of press over this song, so that makes it notable. SKS2K6 07:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm comparing it because it's still about clearing rights, and there are hundreds if not thousands of examples of songs where there have been disputes over rights for usage, be it due to sample usage or what have you. Those disputes are at least legal - these sorts of disputes don't even have legal bases. <shrug> I may be wrong that it isn't an aborted single, but it was still aborted, so it still wasn't a single. It also wouldn't be the first time that album tracks received airplay - I mean, isn't that what FM radio play was all about in the day? Or, for a more modern example, a station or two spun Kelly Clarkson's "Gone," but it too wasn't a single. I just don't see how this has done anything to set it apart from other album tracks. GassyGuy 08:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This song is not a single and there are no plans to release it. Nothing is notable about this song. One suggestion, however, is to merge it with the article about Paris' album.

Keep; there seems to be enough to write about even if it's not a single. Everyking 04:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's enough to write about a lot of songs to fill out articles - does that mean every song deserves one? I can cull all sorts of album track info from liner notes etc., and as far as the planned single angle, there are all sorts of songs that were originally going to be promoted and then had promotion switched over to a different song. Does each of these become notable? GassyGuy 16:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A rumored Paris Hilton single is much more notable than most of the stuff I see here. WillyWonty 22:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really an argument to include this so much as one to nominate a lot of other crap. Feel free to do so. GassyGuy 16:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the main article about Hilton's album. No need for a separate page. JoshuaZ 18:47, 27 October 2006 (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.