Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dance: Ten; Looks: Three


 * 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 A Chorus Line. Regarding the possible future potential of this as a stand-alone article, my suggestion would be to write that article in draft space, then start a discussion at Talk:A Chorus Line (and ping the AfD participants) to see if people are on board. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Dance: Ten; Looks: Three

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a 4 sentence stub with 3 sub-headings. There seems to be very little coverage of the actual song out there and it is unclear how this stub could be expanded. Some of the other songs for the musical are just redirects to a list of songs in the parent article, while others are similarly short stubs with a fancy article structure that makes them look big with no meaningful content. I'd like to see the title deleted and any info not already in the parent merged there. Per WP:MUSICOUTCOMES "Articles about songs are generally considered not notable, and deleted or redirected." Legacypac (talk) 06:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.   Musa Talk  ☻ 08:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to A Chorus Line. This article title used to redirect to the main article for the musical, and after a year and a half of having this be an article of its own, there is still hardly any content here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect - per nom, WP:NSONGS. Sergecross73   msg me  16:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. It is a well-known song from a very well-known musical. Pamela Blair, who originated the role of Val, contended that this song and its famous "tits and ass" chorus caused her to be typecast for years . (Marvin Hamlisch's version of the song's creation and renaming is here: .)    Sources note that the song complicates efforts to produce Chorus Line in certain environments . Kristin Chenoweth tells audiences how she had to change the lyrics back home in Oklahoma, while Melissa Rauch's age-inappropriate juvenile performance got some attention on a 2015 episode of Conan O'Brien's show.  It is cited in Sander Gilman's Making the Body Beautiful: A Cultural History of Aesthetic Surgery , in a column by Ellen Goodman, and in William Gaddis's A Frolic of His Own .  More possible sources show up in a search (using the original title) at GBooks.   --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose The four sources currently cited in the article seem to me to represent significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. See WP:GNG. David in DC (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Info about how the song affected one actress's career seems more appropriately covered in her article. The song can be notable and still better presented in the larger context of the musicial's article. I was not aware of the song or musical until I started looking into redirects targeted at the song. The song article was nearly meaningless to explain significance - I needed to review the musical article to make sense of why anyone cared about this. Hence my proposal to put the song info into the musical article as it provides  context. I'm not challenging GRG on the song, only how best to present to help the readers.  Legacypac (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Understood. Disagree, but understood. Nothing wrong with challenging GRG. They need it. You mean GNG. :) David in DC (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Legacypac here. That's very good information to add somewhere, but its really makes more sense to be presented in the context of the actor/actress/musical's article, as its more about how the song affected those things. I also don't feel that these sources qualify as significant coverage. For example, the first direct quote in the reception section is literally the only words about the song at all from the source, cherrypicked out of a review of the production in general. Some of the other sources I spot-checked didn't do much better. Sergecross73   msg me  18:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep (as creator): Current state = bad; potential state = good. The topic deserves an article, even if this version doesn't do it justice.--Coin945 (talk) 11:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You created this article over a year and a half ago, and the only expansion at all has been due to this AFD, where its still well below getting out of the stub threshold. When are we to realistically expect these improvements to happen? "Potential" is a good argument against deletion in a newer article, not as much in redirect/merge decisions of older articles. Sergecross73   msg me  13:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to A Chorus Line - Great song, but unfortunately doesn't, imho, meet WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:47, 1 February 2016 (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.