Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1+1 (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. Nominator didn't withdraw but AfD is overdue and consensus is clear. (NAC) - frankie (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

1+1 (song)

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * For now, this article fails WP:NSONGS. It hasn't charted nor won any awards. Plus, it is not notable enough just because it was performed on time. If it was, several songs like Soda Pop or I Will be There by Britney Spears would have its own articles. Sauloviegas (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It is a confirmed promotional single. It was given release it North America this week and will most likely chart on Wednesday. calvin999 (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep It will debut in the US this Thursday. Jivesh    &bull;  Talk2Me  18:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Jivesh    &bull;  Talk2Me  17:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep My love is love (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Can we know why you want this to be kept? Novice7 (talk) 04:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete – Wait until Thursday to see if Keep – its charted. Ozurbanmusic (talk) 10:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a fully fledged single. It's a promo single. calvin999 (talk) 00:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes but still, it doesn't pass the criteria for notability per WP:NSONGS. Ozurbanmusic (talk) 00:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Adabow has been generous enough to begin a draft for this page... So we can edit there, delete this, and than move the page back if it grows relevancy (charting and more reception). Theuhohreo (talk) 00:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - As predicted, the song charted. Why this is still up for discussion, I'll never know! Theuhohreo (talk) 13:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per Sauloviegas and Ozurbanmusic. Right now, the song fails the notability criteria. Novice7 (talk) 04:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC) Keep the song now passes WP:NSONGS. Novice7 (talk) 06:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't really care whether the article is deleted or not (well, maybe weak keep), but I am kinda over these ridiculous AfDs. Only Girl (In the World), Halo and The Edge of Glory (I could probably dig up countless others) have all been sent to AfD, and then either kept or deleted and later recreated. It's ludicrous to start an AfD on the premise that "it hasn't charted yet". After a few days these songs do actually chart, and there are numerous songs that are notable due to other coverage. It would be incredibly stupid for every song that charts to be documented on WP, but for every article about a song that does not chart to be deleted. Too many editors misinterpret WP:NSONGS. Anyway, that's my rant. Continue. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Cosign - very good point Adabow. Theuhohreo (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If delete, then also delete 1+1 (song)/version 1 (side-effect of a history-merge). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep 46.217.63.160 (talk) 08:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC) — 46.217.63.160 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep. Even if the song never charts, the current article demonstrates that significant coverage exists for this track in multiple reliable sources (e.g. MTV, AOL, Pitchfork. Additional coverage not already referenced in the article includes ; and there are also non-trivial write-ups focusing on the live performance). Subject passes WP:NSONGS.  Gongshow  Talk 03:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. The song doesn't pass the criteria for notability per WP:NSONGS. VítoR™  get LOUD! 18:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge into 4 (Beyoncé Knowles album) until Keep it passes NSONGS. ۞   Tb hotch ™ &  (ↄ),  Problems with my English?  20:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Per WP:NSONGS: "Notability aside" (the song meets WP:GNG), "a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable 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 suggests a "reasonably detailed" song article is one that goes beyond a stub - a standard which appears to have already been met.  Gongshow  Talk 21:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note - This will all come to an end, because "1+1" has charted on the Hot 100 at number 57! As expected, the song charted and Adabow's point (above) just proves to be even more true... Maybe sometimes people should actually take into account the popularity of the artist and allow the page to stay until that weeks charts come in before AfD-ing everything... Theuhohreo (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, the four headlines above are more than enough to stop this on its tracks - frankie (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. As noted, it has charted and may go even higher than 57. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. It charted, so close this.77.29.82.202 (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Charting song. Ratizi  Angelou  contribs 16:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. It takes common sense to figure out the song was going to chart...the artist's notability should have been enough to warrant a pause before putting the article for deletion...it has charted now - as anyone could have predicted - and has been publicised extensively... JonathanLGardner (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  —Michaela den (talk) 10:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Note Why would this discussion be included on any other related articles... This is buffoonery at it's best. The song has charted and was critically acclaimed, so why is this even here anymore??? Theuhohreo (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. This is ridiculous. Jivesh    &bull;  Talk2Me  17:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Seriously, with the work you put in and the work of other users, this article sustains more information than some of the GA's on here! Theuhohreo (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes Jimee. And it was not even necessary to take this to AFD as we all knew that it would chart. Jivesh    &bull;  Talk2Me  18:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.