Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alejandro (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. although this should not prevent a later redirect if a conensus for such later emerges on the talk page Scott Mac (Doc) 21:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Alejandro (song)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The reason for this AFD discussion is because a few editors redirect the page claiming it is not notable. The relevant notabilty is found in WP:NSONG, this song has charted in the Official UK charts. SunCreator (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Correct me if I'm wrong, but your "rationale" for deletion sounds like a reason for keeping it. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) &#124; (talk to me) &#124; (What I've done)  22:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Well indeed. Some editors think it's okay to redirect. Hence the reason to have an AFD to get WP:CONSENSUS about notability one way or the other. SunCreator (talk) 23:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect A clear redirect of this unnecessary article to the The Fame Monster. There's no background info, an unreliable source for supporting a claim and basically nothing that The Fame Monster doesnot have. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 04:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - The The Fame Monster does not have CHART positions or structure of article. Of course you could merge any two articles together, but there would be no logic in doing so. You are correct that The Sun (newspaper) is a questionable source despite being the tenth biggest(by circularion) newspaper in the world, but what it says is not a factor to determine notability. SunCreator (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by structure of article? --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 04:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Although it doesn't have a release date planned yet, the song is going to have a video and it has charted. Alecsdaniel (talk) 12:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect to The Fame Monster, for now. "Will" be released and "will" have a video is not enough to warrant a separate article. Seems it only appeared on the charts during one week? Nymf talk/contr. 14:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Commment Now two national notable charts, but even one is notable enought for WP:NSONG SunCreator (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Can still be includewd in discography and Monster. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 04:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  —  Gongshow  Talk 17:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect. Yeah, I know that the article current meets with WP:SONGS but let's just ignore all rules for a second and see this issue with clarity: what's the point of having a whole article to just show that this song was a Top 75 in the U.K. when her discography page already does this job? Redundant much?  Sparks    Fly  18:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Sensible comment. I don't think this is a case or ignore all rules myself however. Looking at the article how it stands now, it's quite presentable. SunCreator (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I was anxiously waiting for you to reply my argument. Quite presentable? Well, that's in fact a case of opinion of view. Not trying to be rude or something, but to me, you just created a music and lyrics section and thrown one unreliable source for it. ; put three random reviews to the song which could be easily merged to The Fame Monster (Two of which are not exactly reviewing the song and also are/could be presented into the album critical reception) The live performances section also isn't needed since it's only one (technically) and it already is in the Monster Ball Tour article.
 * See? I'm just trying to see what's the point of this article if it doesn't have a worth background section, and every single thing here can be merged somewhere without a problem.  Sparks   Fly  23:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * The edit you refer to was made by IP 71.93.182.103. Be more careful before accusing me.
 * The reason why a seperate article makes sense, is both structure and content. The structure allows for a logical progression and a central place to find information about the song. Content wise, placing it elsewhere creates problems of it being removed because it's not relevant to the other article. You could create a Alejandro section in the The Fame Monster article, but it will be an out of place looking section added to the bottom(?) that would make other editors want to remove it.
 * If you don't believe the last point, please make a start by putting the music sample into the The Fame Monster article and see how it goes.
 * WP:SIZERULE applies. How about you initiate a discussion on Talk:The_Fame_Monster and see if other editors are happy to split the article in two. As an active phone editor I'll be happy to support a split.
 * The Policy says best practice is to use WP:NSONGS to determine if a seperate article is notable. You think it's not a problem to merge elsewhere, let me ask you, how is it a problem to have it as a seperate article?
 * SunCreator (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Because users will be reading the same content twice, once in Fame Monster and here. Hence its a waste of article space. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 04:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect is approproiate, as opposed to keep, because of WP:NSONGS, please read the third sentence in the third paragraph. "Notability aside, 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". To assume that it will grow beyond its present state is in violation of WP:CRYSTAL.  This information should be merged and redirected to The Fame Monster. J04n(talk page) 18:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * changing to Keep per the good work of expanding the article by SunCreator, kudos to you for a job well done. J04n(talk page) 19:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. SunCreator (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I read that third sentence. Think about what you said 'unlikely ever to grow' does not apply here, we are not talking about some song from 30 years ago with no new information which that wording is intended for; this is as yet unreleased single on the currently most popular(by Google hits, google news, wikipedia page views etc) artists in the world. To contend that this article is 'unlikely ever to grow' is a fantasy. Indeed, there is lots that can be said already and some editors start to add it but it gets removed as they awaiting WP:RS, not blogs etc. If that was not the case you would see an article like fr:Alejandro_(Lady_Gaga) already. SunCreator (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep We already know that this will be released as a single, so why should we redirect it when we'll just have to make it again? That seems a little pointless to me. Besides, more information will be found as the weeks and months go by, and more people will continue to make pages like this. I don't see a valid reason to delete it. Sure, there isn't too much information, but it isn't like Wikipedia absolutely has to have every article be huge. Look at all the others on Wikipedia. The bottom line is, even though there isn't much information now, more will come in the near future. The page will expand in time. Even if you delete this page, others will create more and we'll have discussions like this one again. Why don't we just leave it alone? Weaselpie (talk) 00:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * First, your point is simple the best definition of what is WP:CRYSTAL. Take a look at this and see if what you brought is still valid. And second, who are we? There's no current information about this being single, and even if this is in fact a single, it's still not enough for it's own page, being a single doesn't warrant that. Third, if the consensus of this page will be delete/redirect, people could create the article 100x and we would delete all these times, we just need to know what do do. I won't consider this last as one of your points but still.  Sparks   Fly  00:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It is also interesting how it is all "edit once in a full moon"-people that pops up to say keep. Nymf talk/contr. 21:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:FANCRUFT is a serious issue here. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 06:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - That's why we have notability critera to determine the difference. SunCreator (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And we seriously don't need duplicate content to exist. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 04:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Once in a full moon"? I am certainly not that kind of person. I have made many contributions to Wikipedia in my time as a member. And I'm not just doing this to be stubborn. Almost every day I am seeing new news posts about how Lady GaGa wants to cast Lara Stone in her music video for Alejandro (most came from various European newspapers, but some also came from American ones). I feel that there is no reason to delete this page because a) it will just end up being a waste of time for the people who worked on it and b) there is a very likely chance that it will end up being a single. You'll just waste your time deleting it while others make more. And, eventually, if it is released, it will have been a mistake to have deleted it in the first place. Why should this page about Alejandro, a likely candidate to be a single, be deleted when Ke$ha's song, Blah Blah Blah, hasn't even been released at all? If this is because the page doesn't have much information, it's like I said before: more info will come in time. Again, I see no reason to delete the page. By the way - "Once in a full moon" should be "once in a blue moon". A full moon comes around once a month, right? Sounds pretty frequent if you ask me. Weaselpie (talk) 01:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Not that it has anything to do with the topic at all, but once in a full moon is exactly what I was referring to. People who pop up once a month to do 2-3 edits. Besides, we aren't suggesting that the page be deleted; we are suggesting that it should be redirected. That way it can be restored when/if it becomes notable. As for your comment about casting and that other article supposedly justifying this article, see Other stuff exists and Speculation. Nymf talk/contr. 02:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: The song was released as a promotional single and has charted in at least one area. How about instead of deleting the article, we try to improve it? Tikkuy (talk) 10:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Because the article wouldnot represent anything else that The Fame Monster doesnot have already. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 06:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Chart information. Article structure. Information on the song. None of which you would want in The Fame Monster. SunCreator (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The Fame Monster already has them and is needed there. Adding a wikia link doesnot qualify for notable source. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 04:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This song was released as a promotional single.. link christmas tree, dance in the dark and beautiful, dirty, rich.--Aaa16 (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You two provided the same point, but I still don't find it worth. The song was never used as a official promotional single; it went only for iTunes before the whole album and still, this is a "fan-known thing", there's no source backing it as a single to promote the album.  Sparks   Fly  21:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Completely agree with Sparks. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 06:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with previous posts that it will expand in the future, which will mean it is 'permitted' to stay. EryZ (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Expand? See my post above, which clearly mentions that all info found about the song is already preesnt in The Fame Monster. I don't see any need to have two pages containing the same information. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 06:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no info about the structure, for example. Alecsdaniel (talk) 07:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want structure info, then why don't you read what the people write and research instead of automatically deleting it and saying that people can't come up with any reasons? Wikipedia is supposed to be a free encyclopedia where users add information and administrators/other members read what is written and decide whether it is good to keep or must be deleted. Weaselpie (talk) 01:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Unreliable blog sources are supposed to be deleted. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 04:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge and Redirect If it becomes notable after its release, the article can be recreated, for now, it's WP:CRYSTAL and not very notable Alan  -  talk  23:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - In what way do you consider it doesn't meet WP:NSONG. It has charted in the UK charts and I just found out it charted in the Hungarina charts also. SunCreator (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep It has charted in two territories therefore it meets notability guidlines. It doesn't have to be in the singles chronology but since it's charted it should have it's own page the same as Beautiful, Dirty Rich or Wait Your Turn from Rihanna. Jayy008 (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Charting doesnot substantiate that an article should have project space. The other articles you pointed have more than enough information to properly construct even a GA quality content. This one, sadly is just WP:CRYSTAL. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 04:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I Disagree, I wasn't basing it on WP:CRYSTAL. I was basing it on meeting notability guidlines. Jayy008 (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Never have I seen it argued at AFD that an article should be of GA quality before! Wikipedia has no such criteria. We do not delete article below GA standard. Wikipedia is work in progress; see WP:NOTDONE. SunCreator (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Except for charting, it doesnot meet any other notability guideline, fail again. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 04:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - You want an article to be notable for two reasons? One is enough. SunCreator (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete/merge, almost every song from The Fame Monster has charted so should we have a page for each one? Same with Beyonce's I Am Sasha Fierce. This is become a pointless argument. It is a breach of WP:crystal. The info could easily be contained on the album's page. Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * where is it actually mentioned that this song is a single? Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's the whole point that we want to know. People are assuming that just because two dubious websites have talked about a music video, that it's already a single.  Sparks   Fly  22:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm glad you both brought that up, as it's a common misconception. WP:NSONG does not say it has to be a released single or have a released video. WP:NSONG does say however, the song has to chart - which this song has. SunCreator (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment that is a silly pointless comment because BPI and RIAA have said that due to the growth in sales from places like AMazon and iTunes more and more album songs are being sold individually without being released fully as singles. This could mean that eventually we could have pages for every song on an album whether its released or not. there is not enough information here to warrant its own page. Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Take a look at this graph. It's the average number of new tracks each week in the UK Singles Chart. In the 1994-2005 period before downloads the average was around 18 per week. Today it is about 9; about half of what it was before downloads. Meaning that wikipedia will create much less song articles since the download era then it did before.  SunCreator (talk) 22:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect/Merge. as per above arguements. Not all singles are notable, guidelines say most may be, it doesn't say all are.  Alan  -  talk  00:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - The exception being those where is nothing there will ever be anything to write about. That does not apply here. Consider fr:Alejandro (Lady Gaga) for starters. SunCreator (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Alejandro has charted in the top 5 in hungary! it should be kept as it is clearly a huge hit there and has met more success than most of her songs there. It is also highly likely to be released as a single. For the time it should be kept as it is a highly charting song by Lady Gaga, but when/if it is released as a single, there will be a strong argument to keep it anyway.


 * Redirect - Even if the song has charted in the top 5 in Hungray, that virtually means nothing for basis in an article. Re-establish article when there is more notability, the single has been confirmed, etc. Candyo32 (talk) 23:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - The chart means everything, it's the agreed criteria for whether a song is notable or not. SunCreator (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but as I said before, what's the point of a whole article just to show that the song hit Top 75 in the U.K. when her discography page already does it? Just ignore this notability rule essay that you point for a second and think.  Sparks   Fly  13:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - It's not just the Charts. I highlighted that because it's the information that makes the article notable. There is other information, some of which I added today on the critical reception of the single. Wikipedia is a work in progress so don't expect it all done. Also this article exceeds a stub, wikipedia has 3,186,672 articles of which at least 1,444,438 are stubs. Go get argeement to delete them all and then I'd review your point. SunCreator (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Some interesting discussion and some confused editors. The song having charted in two national charts meets the notability of WP:NSONG. SunCreator (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Erhm... I do think that you can provide your opinion here moreover a keep argument, since you were the one who nominated the article for delete. (?)  Sparks   Fly  14:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment
 * I created this AFD to get discussion. I was open and hopefully there was some logical reason that a few editors redirect this article. I did not say delete or keep, so necessary to clarify my position having heard the opinions of others.
 * AFD is a discussion not a WP:!VOTE so frankly saying I cannot 'provide your opinion' is silly. SunCreator (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you nominate an article for deletion, that presumably means that you are going to present a argument to delete the article. So, when you came here to say that you want to keep the article seemed unfamiliar. If you wanted to get a consensus for keeping the article you should have stuck to the talk page.  Sparks   Fly  20:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - That would of been ideal. But I could not 'stick to the talk page' as the article(and talk) was salted and uneditable. An admin agreed to unsalt if it went to Afd. SunCreator (talk) 20:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect to The Fame Monster. As was pointed out, most of the information is covered at that article, information about this song charting can be covered there if it is not already present, and there is not enough information. Yes, this meets WP:NSONGS by having charted on two national music charts, but that policy also states, "Notability aside, 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." We can't just make an article for every song that's ever charted simply because it charted, there has to be sufficient information, and this simply just doesn't have enough. – Chase  ( talk ) 05:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Two points on 'unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs' :
 * It's is wild speculation to assume this article is not ever going to grow. Plenty of things I already know to add to it. It's not some song from the 1940 or something.
 * Stub. On the issue of stubs, you are assuming it's not beyond a stub already. I contend it's past that point, no one has labelled it a stub. I asked over at Stub sorting if it was a stub. I got the clear reply No, that's far beyond a stub, in my opinion. &mdash; Martin
 * SunCreator (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * comment, it not as if this information couldn't be included on the album's page until there is clearer indication that this is a single. Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment – it is also wild speculation to assume that this article will grow. It's not a single, it's not confirmed to be a single, so until it is confirmed as a single or it receives a substantial amount of coverage for whatever reason, we should assume it will likely not grow. Also, as Sparks Fly pointed out, it's beyond ridiculous to have a page with information that is conveyed/could be conveyed at other, larger articles just because its subject charted as a non-single. Please note that WP:NSONGS states that charting probably makes a song notable. There is not enough information about it to be notable at this point. – Chase  ( talk ) 21:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment It seems after research that there is some info for the background of the article. I will try to add them and let's see. Also, I forgot that the song is extensively being performed at The Monster Ball Tour. Hence it does pass WP:NSONGS. --Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 04:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Per WP:NSONGS, an independent article is "only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". I'm not terribly convinced that the sources provide in-depth coverage for the song, but I do believe the article now meets the "reasonably detailed" standard. Also, songs that have charted are "probably notable" (though not inherently notable). Taking all factors into account, I support keeping as a separate article.  Gongshow  Talk 05:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – I would like to note that the information worth keeping—songwriting information, performance of song on tour, chart positions, and critical reception—could all be easily discussed in the main article, The Fame Monster. The "limited release" claim is unsourced, the music video claim has sources (Digital Spy, The Sun) that are not notable, and the track listing is plain false information since it hasn't even been released as a single. There is no reason why this shouldn't be merged. – Chase  ( talk ) 21:36, 8 February 2010 (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.