Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dope (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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Dope (Lady Gaga song)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NSONGS and WP:CRYSTAL. Notability is not inherited ©   Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 20:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep or just redirect. Let the article snowball. No need for a deletion discussion, especially when redirects do serve as purposes here at Wikipedia... -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I doubt that a non-wiki user type "Dope (Lady Gaga song)" when they search. Also, why should we "Let the article snowball"? Bad Kids, The Queen (Lady Gaga song), Boys Boys Boys, Again Again, G.U.Y., Teeth (song) and other of her songs don't have articles, just because she is Lady Gaga doesn't mean her songs are notables by default. Articles should be created when their subjects demostrate why they are notable, not to play the system by letting them "snowball" to see if they chart or not. Is difficult to wait until the moment a song is notable by its own? Because the content here can be added at Artpop and a redirect could be created instead. ©   Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 21:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I mentioned snowball because the song is being released as a single in three days... so why not just let it expand between now and then. There are other sources that can be incorporated into the article even now. Personally, I just think it is a waste of time to have deletion discussion when redirecting is a more purposeful option (assuming action must be taken instead of just letting the article expand). That being said, I appreciate people who work hard to maintain Wikipedia, so thanks for doing your part. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The reason why AFD it and not redirect it, is because you are well known for edit-war over the redirection of the articles you create. The question is, why the reader needs to go to Artpop, and later to Dope to only receive the information "Dope is a song by Lady Gaga, that will be released in three days. It was written by V, W, X, Y and Z and its album cover features Gaga in a suit with big teeth". That easily can be added to Artpop and avoid readers going from article to article. Why instead of creating an article with lack of notability, you don't use WP:INCUBATOR or User:Another Believer/Dope and expand the article there until it is notable on its own. That avoids the AFD/Redirect issues. ©   Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 22:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Artpop unless it charts, and then (and ONLY) then we can talk about splitting p  b  p  21:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, the track is just about to be released, and while this article may have been prematurely created, it will surely be substantially expanded in the time before this discussion closes. WikiRedactor (talk) 22:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL still applying at this moment. ©   Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 22:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - there is no guarantee that this will be notable, just an assumption that it will be so because it is Gaga. Can be recreated if it becomes notable. Green Giant (talk) 05:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:CRYSTAL which states "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" - it's due for release in two days.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It may be released (Gaga delayed Artpop and Venus (Lady Gaga song) releases), but there is no guarantee it will chart (if any) immediately. ©   Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 19:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In the same vein that the next Summer Olympics or FIFA World Cup may happen...  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The difference is that the 2014 FIFA World Cup or the 2016 Summer Olympics have enough references that back up the events (WP:GNG) even if cancelled--ignoring that it is economically impossible to happen now--demostrate notability aside their parent articles, FIFA World Cup and Summer Olympics. If the song by Lady Gaga is cancelled doesn't demostrate notability aside Artpop and won't impact the economy of the world. You can't compare global events that have been prepared for years with the release of a promo single that was decided a few weeks ago. ©   Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 22:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * But I can. And I have.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You can, but you shouldn't, you have, but who cares? It's your opinion, not everybody's, have someone said "per Lugnuts"? Of course not. It is a shame that an user like you demostrate such arrogance. ©   Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 00:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a shame that a user like you failed to read WP:BEFORE.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I did it many years ago. It's not worthy to continue speaking with a person whose block log explain more what kind of person really is. ©   Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 01:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Pot. Kettle. Block log. I suggest you don't embarrass yourself any further.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What I'm supposed to see? If you meant my block log, I has been blocked once in four years. If you mean the WP:RD2 deletions, all of them were caused by the same person and daily vandals. If you are going to point something do it well, because I don't "embarrass" myself by my actions, and I don't justify my block with "he was attacking me, he deserves a longer block, I wasn't reverting him" like the last time you were blocked. ©   Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 18:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by JLeemans1 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not a votation, you have to give a valid reason why it should be kept. ©   Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 22:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Confident in the amount of sources in the article. Plus, it will chart next week anyway. — Status  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 00:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Question - What model of crystal-ball do you possess that gives such accurate predictions? Seriously though, how do you know it will chart? Green Giant (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ...Because all of her other promo singles charted. And they were all also nominated for deletion and kept. — Status  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 13:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So essentially you are predicting that it will chart based on previous songs? That is what WP:CRYSTALBALL is all about, isn't it? This seems to me to fit into Crytsal Ball point 5, especially, "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content". Green Giant (talk) 17:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Regardless of it charting or not (which is not a requirement), the article is 21.5kb and contains 25 sources. Charting, as I said in my keep, is a plus. Mind you, this is how the article looked at the time of its nomination. — Status  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 18:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The article never should have been nominated for deletion. If there were concerns about its notability, it should have simply been redirected. Now, there is a deletion banner across an article that looks great otherwise. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Once again, you are known by not letting the articles to be redirected. ©   Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 18:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't even know how to respond at this point... Can we remove the AfD tag already, or is there a 7-day minimum? -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - It's number one on US iTunes, so it's going to chart. Just leave it. —  ₳aron  11:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Question - Please provide the evidence to show that it is number 1 on US iTunes? Perhaps I am looking at the wrong place but this list shows only one Gaga song (Applause) in the top 100 whereas this list does not mention Gaga. Green Giant (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yesterday it was number one on US iTunes, and now it is number two, behind Eminem's "The Monster". You've gotta be blind not to see it. —  ₳aron  19:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ermm, no, what I see is a lack of evidence on your part. Where did you obtain this information? It certainly isn't at the iTunes website, so give us the exact link so that the rest of us can see it. If you do that, I will be convinced but so far it is just your word and that is not what Wikipedia is about. Green Giant (talk) 19:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ermm, yes, it was. I present exhibit one: http://ohnotheydidnt.livejournal.com/83041211.html You just couldn't be bothered to look. All you had to do was open iTunes (NOT the website), change it to US, and look at the top singles. It wasn't not just 'my word', it was fact, and I'm sure lots of other people in this discussion saw it too. Obviously, if you look now, you will see that it has fallen to number 55. I don't like the song and I don't most of the album, so why would I have lied about it being number one on US iTunes? Think about it. Your attitude toward me is disgusting. —  ₳aron  13:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Re-direct - At least until the single has officially charted, and thus is notable. It is not an official release for the album, that was 'Applause' so unless it charts then it will not fulfill the criteria. Bruno Russell (talk) 21:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Practically every song on the Born This Way album has its own article, so I don't really see why this can't, too. Besides, it seems to be pretty well-developed and sourced. Alphius (talk) 04:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * , with your "vote" (as you called it), we should create articles (not to be confused with redirects) for G.U.Y., Sexxx Dreams, Jewels n' Drugs, MANiCURE, Artpop (song), Swine (song), Donatella (song), Fashion! (2013 Lady Gaga song), Mary Jane Holland and Gypsy (Lady Gaga song) due the fact that her songs tend to chart. ©   Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 04:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I wasn't really meaning to say that, but if all of those articles could be this well-sourced and detailed, then I don't really see why that would be a problem. I wasn't basing my "vote" (I know it's not really a "vote", but what should it be called?) on whether the song has charted or may chart, but on the sources (at least several of which seem to satisfy the notability guidelines) and detail. Alphius (talk) 20:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, I just looked at the history to see what the article was like when it was nominated. At that point, I think I might have suggested a redirect, but it's been greatly improved since then. Alphius (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep for the time being. If it is released it will chart and be notable, might even be notable if it is released and does not chart. It is a shame that articles are created prematurely, but equally, it really doesn't need a premature AfD to prove that point. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, although I disagree with all the crystalballery. I'm not a big fan of unreleased singles having articles, but this article has plenty of reliable sources that prove significant coverage.  Erpert  WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 01:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, the song has been subject to multiple multiple, non-trivial published sources. I don't think that it needs a chart history to be notable anymore; it is well sourced and has reached an adequate length. Actually, it is even better structured than some articles for the charted singles. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep and close. I know it probably hasn't been seven days but I think there is a clear consensus to keep the article running. With the amount of sources published and cited here and the coverage outside of album reviews, the article is fine. There's going to be some lead expansion needed as of this time to get the article up to GA status, but I think now's the time to declare to keep this article. 和DITOR  E tails 22:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment – Apparently charted at number 20 in New Zealand Top 40. Can someone find out if this is true? If true, this should be speedily kept. — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat ] 07:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It did chart in New Zealand on the New Zealand Top 40 Singles Chart. Here is the link http://nztop40.co.nz/ (121.219.155.26 (talk) 09:33, 8 November 2013 (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.