Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breakin' Dishes (2nd nomination)


 * 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 Good Girl Gone Bad. After some thought. No one here is advocating outright deletion, so redirection really is the way to go here. Noting that it is somewhat unusual for a GA to be deleted/redirected, but as per those that have weighed in on this nomination in these circumstances it is reasonable to do so. As always, if there's anything substantial and worth merging to the parent album article, it can be done so from the page history, as long as it is attributed. (non-admin closure) Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes!  11:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Breakin' Dishes
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Previous AfD of 20 Rihanna song articles was closed as keep with no prejudice against individual nominations.

There are major NSONGS and GNG problems here. The sources here are all about the song's parent album Good Girl Gone Bad, other singles from the parent album ("Take a Bow" and "Rehab"), or tours that Rihanna has been on, with the song "Breakin' Dishes" only receiving passing mention in all of these articles. That is not defined as significant coverage by the GNG. Additionally, NSONGS states, "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created."

This song charted at #4 on the US club charts, and while ranking on a national music chart is listed at NSONG as a factor that "suggest[s] that a song or single may be notable", "a standalone article should still satisfy the aforementioned criteria" of "be[ing] the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label."

All of you participated in the previous AfD and are invited back for this one. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * It should also be noted that this song has been individually brought to AfD twice before, and was deleted both times. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 20:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 20:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect to GGGB. This article is ridiculous in its synthesis of sources and adding content which not even remotely close to being critical responses. Seriously lacks notability. — Indian: BIO  [ ChitChat ] 04:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Good Girl Gone Bad per WP:NSONGS. The synthesis IndianBio brought up is also concerning.  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 06:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect Not notable: barely any coverage in third party, reliable sources. The amount of trivial padding in the live performances section is ridiculous. Adabow (talk) 09:51, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to GGGB as no evidence of notability .– Davey 2010 •  (talk)  03:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm going to be blunt and to the point - I'm ticked off at how so much time seems to have been wasted on getting this to GA status when lets be honest it's not an entirely notable song (Until today I've never heard of the song and again just assuming here but I assume not many other people have either,) It would've been better if perhaps a more well known song was picked for GA status.... That being said I also don't want peoples hardwork to be for complete nothing so based on the fact it's at GA status I have to say Keep. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  14:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "It is unfortunate that editors put effort into writing or maintaining articles that do not meet Wikipedia policy or guidelines. Many editors have seen articles that they invested time and energy into get deleted, and there is no doubt that this can be discouraging. However, the fact of the effort put into an article does not excuse the article from the requirements of policy and guidelines." –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a very good point but to me it must be discouraging to write it up to GA standards only for a year or 2 later to be deleted, But yeah we'll have to agree to disagree. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  19:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep I agree that it must be discouraging to have their hard work go through the roller like this, but seriously, sometimes it is needed. Especially in cases like this, where a mountain is being created out of a mole hill. — Indian: BIO  [ ChitChat ] 07:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Because it has been deleted two times before., your use of the ping template only works for Tomica and Cirt. I, for instance, was not informed or notified about this AFD. —  ₳aron  10:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC) As the senior editor in charge wants a better consensus as it passed GAN: I change to Keep as yes it did pass GAN. It charted highly on the same chart in separate years, which is in fact quite a rarity. It has been performed about 250 times over three tours. I believe that it does in fact just about pass. Don't forget, it wasn't even released as a single, so the fact that this being non-single has attracted this attention... Also, this articles attracts on average 675 views per month based on the last three months; see here.   —  ₳aron  13:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Relist comment: Given the article has passed a GA review I'd like to see a stronger consensus before deleting or redirecting and protecting. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect: Definite WP:NSONGS and WP:GNG issues; this remains a non-notable song, just as it was in the last AfD in 2009. As notability is not a GA criterion, I'm at a loss as to why being a GA has been cited here as any kind of reason: Good Article quality can be created for all sorts of non-notable people, places, or things. I have seen a number of GAs that were subsequently deleted at AfD, including songs, because they weren't notable. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Davey. — Tomíca (T2ME) 15:05, 27 November 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.