Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Jesus + Amen Fashion


 * 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 Redirect to Born This Way. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Black Jesus + Amen Fashion

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. No in-depth coverage on the song from reliable sources. Coverage from album reviews, Gaga's own comments, or album performance reviews (i.e. tours) doesn't count. If not redirected, article should be deleted and perhaps even salted. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep – It charted on two major music markets and a search in Google around the 2011–2012 timeframe shows me enough interviews, analysis and articles on the title and the development. There is material to develop this article beyond stub. — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat  ] 05:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Commentary from Gaga herself in interviews or anything else doesn't count, no matter how in-depth she goes. The charts in this case are moot since the sources talking about their chartings only mention the song briefly. Unless there are multiple reliable sources going in-depth on the song that are not from album reviews, it fails WP:NSONGS. While all songs should be expandable beyond stubs to be notable, being beyond a stub isn't enough when there's no independent in-depth coverage. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It passes point no. 1 of NSONGS, and secondly no charts in national publications talk in-depth about their chart placements. That is wack expectaion and NSONGS does not say so. Thirdly the song has been thoroughly performed live in Gaga's Born This Way Ball and there are sources talking about performance and all. I'm sorry however you may talk about NSONGS, it does pass it. You are correct that it is not present in the article but there are sources. And yes, Gaga's word of mouth is only about inspiration and all, it does not establish notability unless third party sources talk about it, which they have. — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat  ] 06:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Being performed on tour is entirely moot. It really does not pass any of the WP:NSONGS criteria. My point on the charts is that there should be reports talking about a song reaching a position and not just simply a listings page. WP:NSONGS says a song might be notable if it gets certain chartings, but that bit alone is not enough to make it notable. Also, if one takes out the credits/personnel listings (which don't count as notable since they are not independent of the album) and the bits from Gaga herself, the article would be no more than a stub. The song also fails WP:GNG for having no in-depth coverage. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Born This Way, the song's parent album. I have reworded my rationale below so that it's based on the article's state as of this edit. Here is my view of the references:
 * (1) Liner notes from the album. Not independent of the subject.
 * (2) ASCAP database. Assuming the link were fixed, it would show only a listing; no coverage.
 * (3) E! Online. 2 sentences on the song.
 * (4) Rolling Stone. 1 sentence on the song, within a 50-song Gaga-centric countdown.
 * (5) Rolling Stone. No coverage; song is listed as part of a concert setlist.
 * (6) MTV. Passing mention. "the runway thump of 'Black Jesus'"
 * (7, 8, 9). Chart listings (which can be appropriately posted at the artist's discography page). No coverage.
 * Only sources 3 and 4 offer independent coverage for the song which can be considered helpful in establishing notability, and because the total of this coverage is a mere three sentences, I submit that a standalone article is not warranted.  Gongshow   talk  00:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. The placement in the Spanish Singles Chart for me makes the track sufficiently prominent and relevant for an article, and I feel that ignoring that could be a form of systemic bias. Some of the reasons given to keep above aren't so valid, but for me that is moot. KaisaL (talk) 01:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't worry- there is no bias going on here. If there was more than simply a passing mention on the Spanish charting, it could pass WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS, but the simple fact is that there is too little coverage from reliable third-party sources independent of Born This Way for this to be notable enough for its own article. WP:NMUSIC indicates that charting doesn't necessarily make songs notable, particularly when there isn't enough coverage from reliable third-party sources independent of the album to extend beyond a stub. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Born This Way, which is where the coverage is. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Born This Way. UK chart can be included in Lady Gaga discography; all other info is covered in Born This Way. Adabow (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2014 (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.