Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I'm The One (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 delete. T. Canens (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I&

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This song fails both general and song-specific notability requirements and does not deserve a standalone article. There is not even sufficient information for a merge to the article of the album which this song appears. The article does not need to exist. I simple redirect would have sufficed but it was challenged but the article's author, who has become a bit defensive over his "creations" with many others being deleted as well (see Articles for deletion/The Dealer (Stevie Nicks song)). Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 01:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete Same reason as I and half a dozen editors have given at multiple other AfD's of articles created by, fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. Please someone just take them to ANI and get their article creation privileges revoked.  Azealia 911  talk  01:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 02:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unfortunately this is another article about song that fails to meet WP:NSONGS. RichardOSmith (talk) 10:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep is very noteable, released as single. Failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion. So Azealia911 you are wrong - Visnvoisnvo
 * You !voted keep yet understand the song fails notability? What even...I !voted speedy deletion not only because the article fails the stated guidelines, but also its creator, you. We've been in this position half a dozen times, and the outcome is always the same, you create an article, someone redirects it for failing notability guidelines, you reinstate it crying about giving it a chance, it's nominated for deletion, the outcome is redirect/delete, and the process starts all over again. How many more times will it take for you to stop creating articles that fail WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS? Please at least read the guidelines before your next creation to stop wasting everyone elses time.  Azealia 911  talk  12:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * these comments are a personal attack and are not helpful. RichardOSmith (talk) 12:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * How on earth is this a personal attack?! Please do tell.  Azealia 911  talk  12:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I replied on your talk page because that conversation does not belong here. RichardOSmith (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please explain how it is "very noteable". Per WP:NSONGS, "that a single is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article." -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 15:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm quoting the page you tagged. It says you can't tag a speedy delete on this. You are giving a personal attack on me and I am willing to report you if you don't stop. Saying "You reinstate it by crying" and "Stop wasting people's time". If I thought it would be deleted and my work that takes me time to do would be deleted then I wouldn't make articles. What's the point of wikipedia? To make it true! I want things to be cleared up and written with honesty on here. I'm not lying. You're not the only one here. You don't need to tell me this. Someone that will talk to me with respect can speak to me. I'm done listening to you. - Visnvoisnvo 8:43, 12 August 2015
 * Jesus, Mary, and all the saints. Report me if you're so offended that I accused you of wasting peoples time, I have no idea where I could have thought that up (Here's four hints 1, 2, 3, 4) Yes, of course Wikipedia goals are to create as much content as possible, but the content needs to be notable, and the bulk of article creations by you have been proved to not be. You've been requested time and time again to read WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS concerning you article creations, and from the looks of things, you either haven't, or have and don't take notice of them. Oh give over, I've never not treated you with respect, I wrote you a nice message on your talk page, trying to start a conversation to stop you getting so frustrated and lashing out yourself. And what happened? You ignored it.  Azealia 911  talk  12:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Yet another non-notable song, and this is never going to become an article of any substance. This song is obscure even among Fleetwood Mac fans. I have to agree with Azealia that there's some considerable evidence, over a fairly lengthy period now, that Visnvoisnvo either hasn't read the notability guidelines or is content to disregard them. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect I didn't even know this song existed until I read the article (Bretonbanquet is right). It's nice that Visnvoisnvo is creating many Fleetwood Mac articles (many are acceptable), but some just seem pointless. This is one of those articles that falls under the latter category. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 23:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Other than the discography references, there are no reliable secondary sources that reference the historical significance of this song. I checked both news and books and was unable to find resources to expand on this article. As it stands, I would say it does not meet WP:NSONGS and should redirect. Inomyabcs (talk) 05:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per above. No need for redirect, as the article was visited about once daily for the past 90 days, on average. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  13:00, 18 August 2015 (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.