Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I'm Dreamin'


 * 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 Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-14 02:09Z 

I'm Dreamin'

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a two sentence stub about a "future song" that is "apparently going to be included" on Michael Jackson's new album. If Michael finishes this album, it will be notable under WP:MUSIC, however, I don't think that means each individual song is automatically inherently notable and deserving of an article. The only reference cited is a link to a fan forum which says the songs haven't even been finished yet. This should be deleted as unverifiable crystal-balling, per WP:V and WP:NOT until such time as the song actually exists and is verifiably notable. Sarah 15:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as badly referenced crystal ballism, but non-notable, if reliably verifiable. J Milburn 16:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V. Walton monarchist89 17:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment this is a bad faith nom, because Sarah has had a HIStory of disliking me. It was nominated mere hours after I made the article, which basically means one thing: I have had no time to research and flesh out the article. You reckon the article looks crap? Well maybe that's cause I have had approximately ZERO HOURS to fix it. I established it and then retired to bed (yes I do sleep) and only returned from work now. It is horrible to see vendettas behind my back like this, just to make the article not have enough time to be developed by me. I find it horribly deceitful, and while I'm sure you're all jumping the gun, trigger-happy and ready to aim and shoot, why not give me a little more time to research the song? Oh I forgot, you're all probably pals of Sarah's. And I bet 10 others are gonna come on and say "Delete Delete Delete!!!!!!!!" just because sarah is the respected editor and I am nothing. Well that would just be sad because I explained why I needed a little more time, but of course the administrator has 'ways' of getting his/her ways and I'm sure that the candle of this article will be mysteriously snuffed, while simultaneously on Sarah's computer screen the button 'delete' is depressed. --Paaerduag 07:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please stop making personal attacks and assuming bad faith of everybody. Nothing was done behind your back. In fact, I went straight to your page to tell you I had nominated the article. Please try to deal with the article and respond to policy issues. Sarah 09:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply to Paaerduag - No, I am not voting delete because I am a "pal of Sarah's"; in fact the only time I have encountered her before is when she voted oppose on my RfA. And I agree with you that admins have too much dictatorial power. The reason why I am voting delete is because the article, as it stands, does not meet WP policy. If you can provide adequate, concrete sources showing that the song in question is definitely going to be released, then I will be happy to change my vote. But as it stands, it fails WP:CRYSTAL, which is not mine or Sarah's opinion; it is an agreed WP policy. The reason we have AfD, rather than simply deleting articles, is precisely to give users the time to improve articles so that they meet policy standards - as I said, if you improve the sourcing and verifiability of the article I will be happy to change my vote. Walton monarchist89 10:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment You say the only reference is a fan forum. If you take the time to read the article that is referenced, it comes from a Rollin Stone magazine article, and I can give you a link to a scan of the article if you like. Street walker 06:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I did take the time to read the article. The reference in the article is a fan forum. Yes, I noticed that the fan forum was in turn reporting a story from a magazine. However, it doesn't change the fact that it is still an unverified rumour. The song doesn't exist yet and the article fails the policies mentioned above. There is also the qustion of the not minor issue of notability. Sarah 14:10, 10 February 2007 (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.