Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All That (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. An overview regarding this close: It's clear that the article won't be deleted per this discussion, and the redirect arguments have been substantially countered in the discussion, mostly by the provision of sources about the song. North America1000 04:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * A redirect !vote qualifies redirection stating "Without charting or being reviewed / discussed by reliable sources...(et al.), but this notion has been countered in the discussion with the provision of reliable sources that do discuss the song.
 * A redirect !vote qualifies redirection stating that "the song is not covered in indepedent reviews", but this has been disproven per sources provided in the discussion (e.g. this Pitchfork review).
 * A redirect !vote, (as well as other comments in the discussion with this sentiment), qualifies redirection by stating in regard to the sources, “the content from them should be included in the article to demonstrate notability”. This is not a guideline- or policy-based rationale for redirection. Per WP:NRVE, topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing within articles, it's based upon the availability of sources. Sources do not need to be present in articles for notability to be demonstrated. Furthermore, users contributing to AfD discussions are not obligated to add sources to articles.
 * Some for redirection state that the sources provided won't allow for expansion of the article, but this notion has been challenged in the discussion.

All That (song)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

"All That" does not appear to be notable. It didn't chart, the article does not that much information, and there is only 6 sources. Per WP:NSONG. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 01:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Carly Rae Jepsen discography for now; unlikely to grow beyond a stub at the moment Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  01:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 02:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect : Agree with both of you. The song has not attained notability yet and so fails WP:NSONG and WP:NOTE. Without charting or being reviewed / discussed by reliable sources, the article doesn't contribute anything that couldn't be summed up by a sentence or two on either the Carly Rae Jepsen article or her discograpy such as "The album's second single, "All That", was released to iTunes on April 5, 2015." The discography is a good place to redirect for now; if/when an article for E·MO·TION is established, the redirect could be pointed to the album article instead. Songsteel (talk) 02:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are tons of reviews and articles of the song available online. Just because they aren't on the article doesn't mean they don't exist. Please read WP:DELETE. — Status  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 03:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Then,, provide those "tons of reviews and articles" and possibly add them to the article, allowing for an expansion. Cause the way it is now, there is no way this should stay. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, here's several references I found just skimming the surface of this search engine called Google (maybe you should bookmark it for later usage) because some people can't be bothered to actually do some research before nominating an article for deletion.             —  Status  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 23:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * None of those sources are doing the article any good if they're not being used. –Chase (talk / contribs) 01:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Some of those sources are already in the article, and a lot discuss the SNL performance, which is already there. Just cause it has some media coverage, and there can be a lot of sources (for the same subject, i.e., the SNL performance), doesn't mean it will be enough to be an article. If you can possibly expand the article, then maybe. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 00:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, honey... you nominated this article for deletion claiming it's not notable, and I provided multiple sources that prove its notability. They don't have to be in the article. — Status  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 03:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Just because there is a lot of coverage, doesn't mean it is notable since a lot of those sources provide the same information. And it appears it won't grow all that much farther. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe the article does state she filmed a music video for the song (it's unsourced, but I'm sure a music video is on its way, considering it's the second single from her upcoming album). Seems to me that a music video release would provide additional coverage for the song, no? Regardless, the coverage it has already received is enough to establish basic notability. Period. — Status  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 03:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The article still wouldn't be enough, hasn't charted anywhere, and if it can't have more than 20 sources, not really notable. looking at Spotify, it only has a little more than 1 million streams compared to I Really Like You's 50 million+. Even if a music video were to be added, this 5,200 byte length article wouldn't really be much different. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, I didn't realize that how popular a song is on Spotify has to do with its notability; I was under the impression that had to do with the coverage it received from reliable sources. You learn something new every day! The fact that the song hasn't charted (which I don't know for a fact, as I haven't searched for it) does not make a difference. This deletionist attitude has to go. — Status  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 03:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's just a way to show what is popular and what is not. It may have a lot of coverage, but again, a lot of the sources talk about the same thing, if the article can't get much longer (as it appears it can't and won't) there is no reason to keep this. "This deletionist attitude needs to go", discuss content, not editors. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I provided multiple additional sources that could be used to expand the article, and pointed out the fact that a music video will mostly likely be released shortly, and you still don't believe that the article can be expanded further. I am discussing content, and you are discussing Spotify and what is popular on the charts or not. I have nothing further to add, as I have provided more than enough information to warrant the article to be kept. — Status  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 04:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If the article could be expanded, then why don't you expand it then just leaving sources here? Sources are no good unless there if info to add with it. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Because I don't want to. I am involved in a deletion discussion, which is where you either prove or disprove an article's notability. Again, what the article has and what information is out there are two different things. An article does not need to have every bit of information available in the world to exist. — Status  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 04:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, as I can't see even with the sources you provided, how the article could be expanded, someone should do it. The sources that you provided won't expand the article any, a lot are on the same subject, again. And the SNL performance is already in the article. --- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Carly Rae Jepsen discography as the song is not covered in indepedent reviews., All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 15:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per . -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  15:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Winkelvi, your comment above goes against WP:PERNOM. It adds no value to the discussion, please be a little more specific. <b style="color:Red">All About That Bass</b> (<b style="color:Blue">A word??</b> / <b style="color:Purple">Stalking not allowed...</b>) 17:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Although I disagree with Winkelvi's keep !vote, PERNOM states: "If the rationale provided in the nomination includes a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence in favour of keeping or deletion, an endorsement of the nominator's argument may be sufficient." It is common for editors to leave "per X" comments when another editor has said all that they wish to say for brevity's sake. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Carly Rae Jepsen discography for now. You should link to such sources, not simply say "There are tons of them", and the content from them should be included in the article to demonstrate notability. Until that is done, regardless of how much information exists, the reader is not serviced by a few short paragraphs. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: According to WP:GNG, the minimum amount of sources of significant coverage needed is 2, not more than 6. The reviews of the song from Billboard, Pitchfork and Vox, plus the other sources brought up in here, are more than enough (and I also found another one from Fact Magazine, after doing a quick Google search). Also, as mentioned, charting is not the main indicator for a song to be notable. It just implies notability of a song, just as WP:NSONGS clearly states. Kokoro20 (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2015 (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.