Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erotic (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   redirect to Sex (book).  MBisanz  talk 03:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Erotic (song)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Extremely limited promo release only. In fact can barely be called a promo released as it was given away free with a book. Paul75 (talk) 07:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The distribution method doesn't matter; it still received heavy top ten airplay on most charts and was an important milestone song for Madonna. The video infamy alone puts this over the WP:N threshold.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 08:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral Apparently I voted keep on an article which was not up for debate, and the actual article was redirected. That cannot be done during the five day window. I'm reverting the redirect. El cangri386, it must remain in its original state through the entire nomination process.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 00:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect not to the song article, but to Sex (book) as a component of that work. It was a different mix of the song and thus it's separated from "Erotica" itself.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 00:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well then before anything else happens, then I guess I'll give my opinion. I feel that it should be redirected since it isn't really a song of importance and that "Erotica" and "Erotic" are closely related. "Erotic" is the demo version of "Erotica". El cangri386  Sign! or  Talk 00:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well if the song is mentioned on the Sex article, then what about mentioning information on Erotica (song)? It's not like the song can be mentioned in two articles, right? El cangri386  Sign! or  Talk 00:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A one line mention in the song article is enough. Go into detail about it on the book article.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 05:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone has already redirected the article on the promo song "Erotic" to the page for the single Erotica in the middle of a deletion debate without telling anyone, which is frankly bloody annoying! Paul75 (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You want me to undo it?????? The song "Erotic" is the demo version of the song "Erotica", so mentioning the song on the "Erotica" page was what I thought necessary. So if you want, then undo my two edits. Then debate over it. However "Erotic" was merely just a promo CD given free with a book, and didn't even get any major airplay. The two songs are related for the original song "Erotic" being a demo of the later internationally successful single "Erotica". El cangri386  Sign! or  Talk 18:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Say what? You're making this way too complicated. Putting all info regarding the song together may be a good idea, but please clarify that comment cause I totally don't get what you're saying. - Mgm|(talk) 23:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My decision would be Redirect but I've done so already. If someone else feels that my edit is "unfair", then go ahead, undo my edits, and continue discussing on whether or not "Erotic" should have its own article. Simple as that. El cangri386  Sign! or  Talk 00:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: non-notable promo. JamesBurns (talk) 03:53, 20 January 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.