Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christmas Tree (Lady Gaga 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. Consensus seems to be that this song is sufficiently notable. A need for editorial work is not a valid argument for deletion in this case. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Christmas Tree (Lady Gaga song)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete. I am nominating this page for deletion because it completely lacks third party notability. The only part not failing WP:NSONGS is that this charted on an official chart. Other than that, a google search returned no credible articles about this songs, other than download links. We don't need such two line article in Wikipedia --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 03:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: There is no purpose in keeping such an article. There is a lack of coverage to build anything beyond what it already is, which by the way is very little. • вяαdcяo  chat  05:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  — J04n(talk page) 04:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's a real album (yes? if it's not I'd nom it for speedy) by a notable artist. It's not even that bad of a stub right now. These are useful, cause no harm, and fall within the notability criteria. Shadowjams (talk) 06:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I must ask that how can you say that the article passes a stub class? The article consists of three lines. Its even leser than a stub. And also it was just something released for download, its not an album. It was released for free download. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 08:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's 8+ lines rendered, 36 lines in wiki text. I don't think you'll find my AfD history to be particularly slanted towards keeping non-notable articles, but this is clearly stub class. To the point, it's a charting record from a notable artist. Shadowjams (talk) 09:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Barely charted, don't see it progressing beyond stub class (yes, it is a stub). Rehevkor ✉  16:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Barely charted" isn't an excuse, the fact is that it DID chart. And read WP:RUBBISH and WP:NOEFFORT regarding your second argument. Bravedog (talk)
 * It's not an excuse it's an opinion. And I never said no one was working on it or that is was poorly written. Did you even read what or wrote or are you just eager to launch some kind of attack? Rehevkor ✉  00:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. The artist is obviously notable. The song exists, and charted in Canada. The issue, however, is that all I can find are passing mentions of the song in articles about Lady Gaga. For this to pass WP:NSONGS, "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." Therefore, without any context, I don't see how this article will ever grow beyond a stub, given the sources available at this time. So, I vote the article to be deleted, though I would not oppose a brief mention of the song in Lady Gaga's article. Will change vote if significant coverage of the song from WP:RS exists.  Gongshow  Talk 16:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. It passes WP:NSONGS - it has charted in Canada. Without breaking WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, another song by this artist barely charted at all (Beautiful, Dirty, Rich at number 83 in the UK) and is at WP:GA level. "We don't need such two line article in Wikipedia" is not an excuse for deletion per WP:NOTCLEANUP. Dale 17:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Shadowjams and Dale.The song reached the Canadian top 100. Dale's example of Beautiful, Dirty, Rich is a good one and WP:RUBBISH and WP:NOEFFORT arguments are redundant here. Bravedog (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per the reasons Dale mentioned. -- Platinum  Fire  18:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Making a national chart indicates the song is probably notable, but per WP:NSONGS, notability alone does not mean the song warrants an independent article. There must exist verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article. Clearly, "Beautiful, Dirty, Rich" passes this standard, and I'm not remotely suggesting this article has to reach that level. However, if the reliable sources available merely prove that the song exists and charted, then it does not pass WP:NSONGS. In that event, I'd support a sentence-long mention in the main Lady Gaga article. Now, I'm all for keeping this article if "significant coverage" exists, but I've yet to see any such evidence.  Gongshow  Talk 18:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Without a WP:WAX violation, surely this means that this should be deleted too, despite topping the UK charts? A song charts, there are sources to prove that it exists - it should not be deleted. Whilst thinking the best of everybody, I also feel that there's a little US-bias here - had the single charted in America, the votes to keep would be coming in thick and fast. But as Canada is "foreign", there seems to be hesitation. Not accusing anyone of anything, just a POV. Bravedog (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the WP:WAX non-violation, so I won't address a hypothetical case involving the "Baby Cakes" article, other than to say if and when it should ever come up for AFD, I will be happy to scour the web for significant coverage in WP:RS, or confirm a lack thereof; in other words, the same process I have followed for this nomination. As for the US-bias POV, while understanding that the comment was not directed to anyone in particular, I would just like to state that my vote and justification holds whether the chart in question originates from the US, Canada, or any other nation. WP:NSONGS is clear in articulating that a national chart will suffice to indicate "probable notability". Similarly, WP:NSONGS is clear in articulating that notability alone is not enough to assure that a song article is appropriate, and that is why I have kindly requested for evidence of any "significant coverage" which would help to establish a "reasonably detailed article" (e.g., a song review, an article describing the song's lyrics, music, recording process...really, just anything so long as it provides some significant details beyond triviality). In my view, sources that confirm the song's existence, or list the song's chart peak, are great, but such passing mentions prove only that the song is notable, not that the article meets WP:NSONGS, because in addition, the song must still meet the "significant coverage in reliable sources" standard. Again, if such coverage exists, I would appreciate evidence of it so I can change my vote accordingly.  Gongshow  Talk 01:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. The song appears to be notable, that notability appears to be documented in at least one reliable source. So, the article should be kept. If this were a single off of an album, though, I'd recommend a merge without a second thought, because the material really is thin for a stand-alone article. But this wasn't a cut off of an album, so that does not work - and a merge to the artist doesn't really fly, either. So we keep. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 21:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Important note - since this AfD started, a series of extra citations have been added to the article. I have alerted User:Legolas2186, User:Bradcro, User:Rehevkor and User:Gongshow about this issue. Dale 21:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And I still prefer a delete. There's nothing in the article that is already not present in Lady Gaga discography. Hence again, no point. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 03:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per the reasons stated above. Just because the article is small doesn't mean it should be deleted. I'd like to also point out that it was released in March of this year so it hasn't actually had any Christmastime publicity yet, not that wait and see is an excuse. It charted in Canada and is by a very well known artist. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The series of 2 additional citations consists of (1) a credits listing which proves the song's existence, and (2) a chart listing of the song's peak position. While I appreciate the efforts to include any reliable sourcing, these do not address my objection's rationale. Per WP:NSONGS, charted songs are only "probably notable", not inherently notable. Songs must meet the WP:GNG standard, meaning "significant coverage" must exist. By that, we must look for a RS to "address the subject directly in detail" and provide "more than a trivial mention". To date, no sources appear to offer a single sentence about the song. Until such coverage is presented, my delete vote stands, for what it's worth.  Gongshow  Talk 21:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Lady Gaga. I would like to point out to other editors who are mentioning the article Beautiful, Dirty, Rich's subject as another promo-only, single-chart-appearance song from the artist, and that it is at good-article status. However, there is a good chunk of reliable information regarding the song's background, writing, composition, and other information. The sources in this article do little more than prove who the song was composed by, that the song exists, that it was released as a single and that it charted. There is simply not enough reliable information to warrant this song's article. WP:NSONG even says, "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." There is nothing left to say. Redirect this to the artist's article and give it a brief mention there.  Chase wc 91  23:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Not enough coverage. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 04:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - it charted. With work, the article can be tidied up considerably. -- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 19:10, 22 November 2009 (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.