Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friday (Rebecca Black 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   speedy keep. I am pretty sure that WP:SNOW really applies here so I think it is best to close this now. (non-admin closure) Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Friday (Rebecca Black song)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article falls afoul of policy on biographies on living persons, and should be deleted per WP:BLPDELETE. ("Summary deletion is appropriate when the page contains unsourced negative material or is written non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be rewritten or restored to an earlier version of an acceptable standard.") Many of the points in this article do not even seem to be accurately based on the cited sources. And, even if these points were accurately based on the sourcing, the negative focus makes it decidedly non-compliant with the encyclopedia's biographies of living persons policy. (Note that although the article is not a biography, the fact that it mentions the singer by name & that the singer's name redirects to the article makes it especially essential that the article is compliant with BLP policy). CordeliaNaismith (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand The song and artist rose to repute/notoriety less than a week ago. This article has a lot more room for expansion, especially with regards to the "viral" themes. Keep in mind that this video has not been televised, and as far as I know, did not have radio coverage until after it's success. It could become a distinctive piece of social commentary, as easily as it could fade away into obscurity. Either way it is too early to make a definitive decision. But, for anyone wanting to reference the Facebook/Tumblr/Youtube generation and its potential to spawn careers based, ironically, on defamation, this article could be absolutely critical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.182.182 (talk) 18:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I am not a big wiki writer/editor, but I wanted to find more info on this individual given the recent spread of her success and found my answers on this page. It is knowledge that should be shared.  The name is misleading, though.  This page should be more about the artist, less about the song.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.204.229.11 (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Its awesome
 * Keep I'm very supportive of avoiding BLP violations, especially when it's a 13-year-old, but I don't see any here. Negative unsourced additions have been repeatedly reverted, and what's left seems well sourced and accurately reflects the sources - in fact, every single statement is sourced. Sources include Time, Rolling Stone, Entertainment Weekly, New York Daily Times, Forbes. (Please also note there is also a deletion review of a related article happening at Deletion review/Log/2011 March 14) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as per User:Boing! said Zebedee. WereWolf (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Edit The article should be edited to removed the references to her by name, all of which are very hostile, until such time as she qualifies as a notable person in her own right; and the references can satisfy WP:BLP. Her individual identity as the singer of the song is not integral to the article, and could be eluded to, such as by mentioning it was sung by a 13-year old girl, rather then using her name. While its not an ideal solution, it would seem like a good compromise. Monty 845 (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * But it's only her actual performance of it that makes it notable - that's what all the well-sourced stories are about, not just about the song. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * While it is the specific performance by her that has drawn attention, and which the article is about, how notable is it that she is the singer? My view is that any other non-notable person could have replaced her and the song would have received the same attention. Normally, even if you agreed with me on that, it wouldn't be justification for removing her name, but given the circumstances here, I think it would be reasonable to do in light of the extreme hostility involved. (though I don't think any specific policy would demand it) Monty 845 (talk) 20:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't think that would work - it would be like having an article about the sayings of George W Bush but describing them as having been said by "a US President". I think it either has to be kept as sourced, or deleted - and if a consensus for deletion against policy could be found, for humanitarian reasons, I wouldn't object. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I strongly disagree with "any other non-notable person could have replaced her and the song would have received the same attention" - it's the fact that she's such a bad singer that even auto-tune can't save it that has made it such a hit. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I understand that I am likely in the minority here, but I think keeping an article that is a series of criticisms regarding a child simply because it can be sourced is completely unnecessary. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Although I !voted to keep it, I wouldn't object if a humanitarian case could be made for deletion - but it would be an IAR decision -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Which is what it would need to be. My delete !vote is IAR through and through - I understand the keep votes are supported by current notability guidelines, but I personally cannot argue to keep any article that perpetuates the mocking of a child. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In actuality, the sources are generally criticizing the song and video, not the singer. There are a couple of sporadic mentions of her facial expressions in the video, but there just hasn't been any reliable sources criticizing her talent, looks or singing.  Sure the heavy use of autotuning is a topic of humor, but that doesn't mean they're saying she's a bad singer, it could just be the production choice which is extremely prevalent currently in music industry. --Oakshade (talk) 05:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep 108.71.52.30 (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep While I do understand the basis for the arguments regarding the deletion of the page, specifically the negative criticisms of a child (albeit sourced), I think it is an important topic to have due to the methods through which this video spread, notably social networking tools. In a matter of hours, the video spread rapidly, and as such, became one of the most talked about topics on Twitter and Tumblr, as sourced. That alone should keep it as a notable piece of media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.78.26.125 (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep notable nonsense is notable. Using her name in this context is acceptable--she may have been ill-advised to record it, but that she did has been published by multiple responsible sources, and do no harm is irrelevant. (I have said otherwise with respect to the article about her--a title starting with her name would be undue prominence at this point.). the guiding rule is well stated in the essay, WP:OSTRICH.  If we could delete the song from existence altogether, that might be a good option, and a case could be made for that being the humanitarian position, but the world is as it is.    DGG ( talk ) 20:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - This song has been discussed in countless notable sources, including Yahoo!. And, like the person above me said, notable nonsense is still notable.--76.106.233.222 (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The subject meets the GNG, even if the phenomenon is based on the unconscionable exploitation of a child. That's a good reason for expunging the "studio" behind this claptrap from existence, not for ignoring the subject. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep- the article is on the song, not the person, shouldn't even be considered as an issue. And, as hillariously awful as the song is (in a fit of masochism, I actually forced myself to listen to the whole thing), the GNG has been met and exceeded in spades. Now if someone could supply me with brain bleach to remove the song from my head, I'd be grateful. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * sorry, that should read WP:BLP shouldn't be considered an issue. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. As Oakshade noted in the DRV for Rebecca Black, this is not the case of "a kid in her room who made a video of herself intended for her friends"; it's a commercial venture, with an official website, for sale through iTunes and as a ringtone.  The coverage is massive.  I agree that BLP applies but I don't see any violations at this point.  At this point it's just like any other Wikipedia article about a notable one-hit-wonder song--except that this one has a lot more reliable sources than such articles usually do. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is an extremely high profile song, arguably passing WP:GNG easier and sourced better than most song articles. Contrary the the nom's statement, it looks very heavily sourced and I know this as I've been scrutinizing this page within minutes of its creation (I was the editor who first wikified and sourced this article) and written with neutrality; Most of what has been written about this song has been negative. If there has been a positive review of this song, by all means put it in.  We might not like it, but that is not a criteria for deletion. --Oakshade (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; I also have contributed to this article (...please don't judge...) and I believe the other editors and I have done our best to keep it as neutral and sourced as possible. It isn't our fault when the coverage has been exceedingly (and mostly scathingly) negative.  The sources that both meet Wikipedia source requirements and are not-so-negative are essentially backhanded compliments (see the Rolling Stone article already listed, or this review by The Arizona Republic).  As stated earlier, this was the singer's attempt at a legitimate, publicly consumable song (uploaded onto YouTube, sold on iTunes as of yesterday); as such, there's nothing inherently excluding it from public discourse, including Wikipedia.  SKS (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * IAR Delete - BLP issues, and notability reasons. The fact that this song is 'notable' today doesn't mean it'll be notable tomorrow; we shouldn't have articles based on flash-in-the-pan internet memes, but those that demonstrate lasting notability, which this hasn't yet. And though it is well sourced, I'm just not comfortable with keeping what is essentially an attack article on a living 13-year-old. If it's going to be kept, as it seems it is, at the very least have the decency to remove her real name and image. Robofish (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * But she's using her real name and that image to sell it - see -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with that request is absolutely no reliable source, many of which are much more respectable than Wikipedia IMO, has withheld her name and image and both are synonymous with the song title and are even part of the iTunes single which is currently charting, currently up at 69. Wikipedia is not censored and this is not a case for an exception as everything here is very well sourced per WP:BLP. --Oakshade (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, this one's got way out of our hands, I don't think notability can be denied any more. The article's also more neutrally written than it was, and I was probably exaggerating the BLP issues in the first place. Switching to Keep (though I would still say it should be re-examined at a later date to see if notability is truly lasting). Robofish (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Absolutely -- The song was intentionally put into the public space as part of a commercial venture (even if it started as a 'vanity project'), and the song and its artist are inseparably linked at this point - Chachap (talk) 21:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:IAR or invoke an WP:OFFICE action if need be. This momentary hoopla is a blip of internet meme idiocy, subject of which is a minor.  That teenaged girl who made headlines last year for her "stop hating" or whatever video doesn't have an article here either, thankfully.  Start acting more like an encyclopedia and less like a branch office of TMZ. Tarc (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You're comparing apples and oranges. This is a legitimately professionally produced and distributed song (albeit awful), not a kid making a youtube video rant from her bedroom.  If TMZ or like tabloids were the only sources, then your "branch office of TMZ" line might be valid, however the sources are not TMZ or other tabloids and are mostly very prestigious ones. --Oakshade (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you read what I actually said, you'd see apples-apples. I don't care about the origination or intent of either video, that isn't relevant.  The point is, both received coverage in reliable sources, but that isn't always enough to justify a Wikipedia article.  There's a part of WP:BLP policy (note that; policy) that reads "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.", that is unfortunately routinely ignored when overzealous editors create articles based on recent events. Tarc (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually the "origination or intent" of your example has a great deal to do with your argument. That ""stop hating" video was not a professionally produced and distributed video by a high publicity production company as this song and video was.  There is nothing about this article to indicate a violation of the policy of BLP nor the quote you choose from it as, per WP:BLP, any negative content has been cited by reliable sources. --Oakshade (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Providing a timely article on a pop culture phenomenon (yeah, we're gonna get 'rick-rolled' on this one for the next decade, at least) doesn't turn Wikipedia into TMZ -- as long as it remains sourced and factually-based. If I hadn't caught wind of this a few days ago, and wanted to know just WTH was going on, I'd be clicking straight to WP for the scoop, and if there was no article to be found, it wouldn't be the "freakishly addictive" video making me say, "WTF!?", it would be the LACK of an article here. --Chachap (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. --Jannefoo (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC) — Jannefoo (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

this song is awful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.53.122 (talk) 23:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC) Keep and expand She put the song out there, if people want to expand they should be allowed. There have been younger people than her and it's her fault for making some a viral piece of junk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.211.132 (talk) 23:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC) { — 67.204.211.132 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Normally i'd just stay away from discussions like this. However, this internet meme is one that seems to have caught onto the mainstream, with significant discussion in major publications such as Rolling Stone, TIME, CNN, and others. The amount of coverage is more than sufficient enough to meet our standards of notability. Silver  seren C 22:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This song currently 69th in download chart. http://www.apple.com/itunes/charts/songs/ and got bad critical reaction. In wikipedia there are movies with bad critical reception but we're not deleting these. 78.160.27.47 (talk) 22:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC) — 78.160.27.47 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Many sources have already discussed this artist and the song. I see nothing wrong with informing people of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.133.192.129 (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC) — 205.133.192.129 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Edit/Delete I don't mind keeping the bad reception, as long as it isn't the content of the entire article. You can't have an article which in essence says "X was a song by 13 year old Y, and everybody hated it. Here's the sources to prove it." Where's the actual description? Anything to do with reception should be put under "Critical Reception" header (or similar). If this cannot be arranged, I say it's best it's deleted for now. Why should we keep an article which is just an hurtful attack on an innocent 13 year old girl?! --CameronLee (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC) — User:CameronLee (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. Absurd at this point to deny the notability. BLGM7 (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand - I could understand the point of 'it encourages people to hate a child' for articles such as Nazi Pop Twins or Prussian Blue. But I don't think anyone actually hates the girl, in fact many seem to love her for successfully parodying the pop music industry in a brilliant way, albeit probably unintentionally. I don't think this is going away, may well be the start of a highly successful career, as previous said this isn't someone ranting in their bedroom and becoming a meme. She has the force of a record label behind, is twittering away on twitter about how excited she is about all the attention she is getting. I think if the child came out and said she regretted ever doing the video and wanted to forget the whole thing then the article could be deleted on purely compassionate grounds. But as I said she has no shame in having her name attached to the song, more power to her for that btw. So in conclusion: not offensive, notable for now, and I agree with the above comment that the article should be more than just the negative reaction. I will attempt to write a short neutral description of the video. If in six months then this is proved to be a momentary fad THEN open an afD and see what happens, but no crystal balls at this stage I'm afraid.--EchetusXe 23:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice work, it's much better now - and who knows, with the way it's going maybe we'll soon be able to add a bit about its chart positions too ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I certainly hope we can write about some chart success in the future. Outside of Lady Gaga, Black's work is the most interesting thing to happen to pop music since the Pet Shop Boys.--EchetusXe 01:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Brilliant reframe on the article, 'EX'; the views expressed in 'Rolling Stone' & 'EW' were sorely missing, and place the song's importance in a better context. --Chachap (talk) 01:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets criteria sets forth in WP:GNG. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I just checked, this is number 77 on the top 100 downloadable songs in iTunes. Its popularity is still growing rapidly. The song has only been popular for about five days, but in the future there will definitely be more events concerning this song that will lead to expansion.  Ŵïllî§ï$2?  (Talk!/Sign) 01:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I came to this article this morning and considered nominating it for deletion as well because the article was so lacking. But in just one day, there has been a lot of improvement here.  It's well sourced, there is cover art, and even covers already.  Definitely notable.  ~ [  Scott M. Howard  ] ~ [  Talk  ]:[  Contribs  ] ~  02:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:BLP Is not intended to prevent all negative criticism of an individual. It should be kept and expanded. If there are positive reviews, then these need to be included.  This meets notability, and should be kept.   R mosler  | ●   02:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep So much media attention here – foolish to call it non-notable at this point, whether we like it or not. Goyston talk, contribs, play 02:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Every other horrible pop song gets a wikipedia page...this one deserves a page too. Stromcarlson (talk) 03:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Obviously passes all notability tests easily, and it appropriately goes by what the sources say. —Torchiest talkedits 03:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The video has over 10.3 million views on YouTube at the moment and countless parodies. At this point, it's notability is very solid and isn't going away anytime soon. Illinois2011 (talk) 03:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as it meets music notability guidelines as it's been criticized by media and has gone viral online. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 03:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm sorry, I almost always say delete the memes, but 10 million views on youtube? Plus the song is top 100 in iTunes, so as much as I want to kill the song with fire, we have to face the reality that although it's for all the wrong reasons, this song is going to at least be certified gold. 76.102.155.25 (talk) 04:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain how you "almost always say delete the memes" when your edit history shows no other AfDs before this?--Oakshade (talk) 04:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like they may have just forgot to log in. Illinois2011 (talk) 04:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong keep &mdash; Even if you think internet sensations have no place on Wikipedia, this "song" (if you'd like to call it that...) has become a successful single. That in itself makes it notable enough for inclusion.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 04:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a single that's been professionally produced and released and has proved successful (albeit in not the right reasons). It's been discussed in a variety of accredited sources. It pretty much fits the definition of notability now.Dtnoip28 (talk) 04:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is (unfortunately) extremely culturally relevant. And it's well-cited. Doesn't make fun of the singer, but quotes critics who mock the songwriting and video. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.240.18 (talk) 06:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)   — 96.52.240.18 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Why would we delete an article that's about a very notable subject, that's well written, and has a ton of references from a ton of different reputable third-party sources?  Ridiculous.  Whoever nominated this for deletion should be stripped of the ability to do so in the future, because they obviously have no judgement whatsoever.Rockypedia (talk) 06:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Edit & Keep I'd like some of the more grating phrases changed. Such as "overwhelmingly bad lyrics, singing and video content" in the intro, or in critical reception, "One reviewer went so far..". If you're going to include a bad comment at least explain who said it and where. On the subject of notability, a video with over ten million hits, and this many media sources I think is worth keeping. Not to mention number 69 on itunes top 100, even the 10th best selling pop song in New Zealand right now. The song Friday is probably more notable than Rebecca Black or Ark Music Factory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danthemango (talk • contribs) 08:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'd normally argue strongly against keeping articles based on flash-in-the-pan news stories about lulzy internet memes, but the coverage this song has picked up in a wide variety of very high-quality reliable sources is remarkable. It comments on the phenomenon of teen pop, of internet celebrity, of the way you can become famous overnight on the internet, and on the use of autotune. I strongly suspect this will be one of those things that still gets referred back to in days to come. That said, it does obviously need to avoid merely slagging off the song/singer without careful use of reliable sources.-- K orr u ski Talk 08:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - per the fact that social media are a huge part of the world we live in today. Its not 1980 anymore, Wikipedia users has to become more aware of this. The song has charted within the Top100 so its a notable song for that reason too.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, no reason not to mention her by name; she's a published singer, and should be treated no differently to, say, Lady Gaga. Her age is irrelevant; there have certainly been published singers younger than her (Willow Smith, for example) and all of them have articles. All negative comments in the article come from valid sources and are consistent with other articles' "Critical reception" sections. CNash (talk) 10:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Jackie Evancho would be another example of a child singer we have an article on. Silver  seren C 10:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, because this article provides much insight for all users of Wikipedia to know more about "Friday" and Rebecca Black. Also, this is not a troll nor a flame, so it should not be deleted. Blackie  Dog  w/c/d 10:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yesterday people said this song wasn't notable. That was Wednesday. Today is Thursday. After that comes Friday. Fun. Fun. Fun. Fun. AfD hero (talk) 11:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Um... ._. Wow. That must have taken a long time to do. Silver  seren C 11:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. This article is not different to all the other viral things on the internet. Hohohob (talk) 11:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, Article provides a quick explanation for an otherwise vague Internet phenomenon. If deemed necessary, reduce/eliminate negativity toward the subject. But the need for sensitivity is reduced because the subject has put herself in fair territory for widespread and harsh artistic criticism by releasing her voice and image as a cultural work. She has agreed to become a public figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Btimlake (talk • contribs) 15:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I know I haven't been around for a while, but last time I looked, if something had so much coverage it immediately becomes notable. Therefore, this is perfectly notable. DeMoN 2009  16:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Edit and Move To emphasize: This is not a BLP; as currently titled, this is an article about a song. It needs to be broken out into a Rebecca Black BLP and an article about Friday separately. Of course the song/video is notable, and by extension so is Black. But it has to be carefully written to avoid POV issues, which I don't think is impacted by noting the general documented reactions. x (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. User:Rbs7878 (User talk:Rbs7878) 18:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Reluctant and disgusted keep - like a lot of pop-culture fads, says more about the pathetic condition of our culture than about the subject, that such a thing should be clearly notable. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  20:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The video's gotten millions of views in a month. Even weeks after the fact, people are still talking about it. I've seen it on forums, front pages on sites like Yahoo!, and the TV news. This is what Wikipedia is for. Rockhead126 (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a very high profile song and has received millions of views over the course of a week. It's been posted on news sites and has been discussed extensively on radio and tv news. This is no different to other 'pop culture' fads that have articles on Wikipedia. It is also a song available for purchase on the iTunes store since 14 March 2011. Matt (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is like having a Britney Spears profile (and it should be reoriented around Rebecca Black); the only significant difference is degree (BS is more famous and prolific than RB). When folks hear this song and think, "Who's Rebecca Black and what's the deal with this song?" they should be able to trust that Wikipedia will have the reliable, neutral assessment of this person. People want reliable information, and Wikipedia has a chance to give that information on the topics that people are interested in, including, for better or worse, this song and its heretofore unknown singer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.66.104.128 (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and Improve. Notable and peculiar.TjoeC (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The article was much improved by EchetusXe (great job :-), and I don't think that there are major BLP problems anymore at the moment. I'd be happy to withdraw the AfD nom, if anyone wants to close this one early...CordeliaNaismith (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh no, it shouldn't be closed until.... Friday! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Cordelia, and love the thinking there Zebedee. Who said bureaucracies cannot come to touching and appropriate conclusions?--EchetusXe 23:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - passes WP:N; problems described above regarding unsourced criticism etc seem to have been addressed. Una LagunaTalk 23:15, 17 March 2011 (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.