Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gimme All Your Luvin (Madonna 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. Subject passes General Notability Guidelines, as PBurka correctly points out--which renders moot all discussion of WP:SONGS. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Gimme All Your Luvin (Madonna song)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Song has no chart positions or accolades. It is also a blatant duplicate of a sandbox article started earlier by a respected editor. If kept, it would conflict with attribution rules stated in Wikipedia's copyright. | help dןǝɥ  | 00:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per reasons above. This is WAY too soon. — Status  &#x7B;talk contribs  00:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete premature creation. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  03:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep – this song is being released next month, it hardly premature! It has been officially confirmed and is a good starting point for a good article.This article has already established itself with quite a lot of information and sources. It would be ridiculous to delete it now and have to re-create it again in a month. There is information on the title change, controversy of the song, music video etc. Lady Gaga's "You and I" had a page months before it was even announced as a single and there was no problems with that.  J W A D  Communicate|Nicely 08:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete nearly all info is about the leaked demo, which fails notability. JKW111 (talk) 13:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: WP:TOOSOON. Agree with reasoning above.— cyber power   ( X-Mas Chat )( Contrib. ) 14:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. May not have been officially released yet, but it leaked and, more importantly, was the subject of substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources, such as MTV and Billboard. Pburka (talk) 01:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Getting sick and tired of these stans and bloody users create every damn page under WP:N. Bite me. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 06:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Passes WP:GNG, has been confirmed, so there are no WP:CRYSTAL issues, and any attribution issues can be fixed through its own process.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 14:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Is this the finalized version of the song? It's posed for a release in January, so I have doubts about the leaked version being the final one. —DAP388 (talk) 19:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Leaked versions are almost never final. It is best to always use officially released material so reliability won't be an issue.  If there are users that wish to keep this article, I propose we move it to the creator's userspace so they may edit and fix it as well as other users fixing it.— cyber power   ( X-Mas Chat )( Contrib. ) 20:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, the reasons explained above. ---- Digital1 (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Premature article, the current article is just about the leaked demo. Bluesatellite (talk) 09:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. What's wrong with that? The leaked demo is notable per WP:GNG. Pburka (talk) 12:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * All of this information is on a DEMO. The final version is confirmed to be very different. The only useable information here for when the song comes out is the background info. — Status  &#x7B;talk contribs  04:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That is like saying we should delete The Trial because Kafka didn't complete it. This might not be the version Madonna wants us to hear, but it's still a notable song, per WP:GNG. Pburka (talk) 00:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That literally makes NO SENSE. Madonna didn't die before she finished the song, did she? Nothing about a demo is notable if there is a finished version completed. It fails WP:NSONG simple as that. That's what we use to denote SONGS for. — Status  &#x7B;talk contribs  03:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What policy are you basing that on? A demo can be notable if it has received coverage in reliable sources. I trust that the closing admin will take into account that few of the delete arguments are based on any sort of policy. The subject satisfies the WP:General notability guidelines and should not be deleted. Pburka (talk) 03:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Moot point, as explained below by CK, WP:NSONGS is the governing policy here, not GNG. And this one fails it on all accounts. — <i style="color:blue;">Legolas</i> ( talk 2 me ) 17:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * CK is wrong. "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not. A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right." (my bold) 86.44.31.213 (talk) 02:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete : Fails WP:NSONG in all forms. - (CK)Lakeshade  -  talk2me  - 02:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it passes WP:GNG, which trumps every other notability guideline. Pburka (talk) 04:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, it doesn't. GNG is a guideline for articles as a whole. If you look at GNG at the very top of the page it directs you to "Subject-specific guidelines" which deal in depth with articles related to certain subjects - with music being one of them. Specific article guidelines to dealing with music >> GNG. - (CK)Lakeshade  -  talk2me  - 05:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That just means that this isn't notable as a song, but, per WP:GNG it's still generally notable as a "thing". The only case for deleting articles which satisfy WP:GNG is if they fall under WP:NOT, which this article doesn't. Pburka (talk) 00:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "This page provides a guideline of how the concept of notability applies to topics related to music, including artists and bands, albums, and songs." <--- This means how N. (aka. GNG) applies specifically to music related articles. Again, GNG is an overview of an idea of what is notable; NSONG deals specifically with music notability and what is needed for an article to get created. Consensus with editors has established NSONG as the governing guideline, not GNG. Music articles need to pass GNG AND NSONG. - (CK)Lakeshade  -  talk2me  - 06:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest you review the second paragraph of WP:Notability. Pburka (talk) 12:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right. This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page." Simply meeting GNG if it does not meet its subject-specific guideline is a weak rationale for notability. Furthermore, this article is asusming that a demo version is the actual "Gimme All Your Luvin". That falls under WP:CRYSTAL. In other words, this article is excluded under WP:NOT. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  13:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral Let's face it... Isn't this lined up for a release? I don't want to bring WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS here but this page is better than so many of the craps I see daily here. But I know rules are rules. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 15:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Incubate or Delete Fails WP:NSONGS, WP:GNG. - Saulo  Talk to Me 22:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: too early, fails WP:NSONGS  ×º°”˜ `”°º× ηυηzια  ×º°”˜ `”°º×  15:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Confirmed future single with significant independent coverage in reliable sources. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 02:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sufficient coverage already and a confirmed release date a few weeks away. Deletion would seem rather pointless.--Michig (talk) 09:01, 26 December 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.