Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucky Day (Nicola Roberts 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. My own opinion is that it's probably too soon to have an article on this subject and my personal recommendation is to redirect this to Nicola_Roberts. However, there is no consensus to delete this article and the nominator is waffling a little. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Lucky Day (Nicola Roberts song)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Definitely not notable enough yet, and it isn't released for another month FeuDeJoie (talk) 11:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 12:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - There is quite a lot of information about it though. I remember the Gaga's Born This Way album was live for like 5 months before it was even released. It's pointless to delete an article of this size only to then have to re-create and re-write it. Calvin  &bull; Na Na Na C'mon!  19:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * None of these are strong arguments. Thanks for demonstrating WP:PLENTY, WP:OTHERSTUFF, and WP:EFFORT. BusterD (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - A lot of good information about the track, and the video. Just because it isn't released for another month doesn't mean it should be deleted - it has a lot of information, and reviews, therefore it should be kept! It seems the only reason "Spiceitup08" wants it to be deleted is because he wants to re-write himself. Selfish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ooooh91 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing to see here. A variation of WP:PLENTY and topping it off with WP:ADHOM. BusterD (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Why would I delete something if I wanted to re-write it on my own, when it comes to the time I will re-write it and I absolutely dont need to remove it to re-write it, I re-wrote, "Beat of My Drum", your "selfish" comment, is kind of rude and definitely uncalled for, I just thought that the article lacks quality information as well as it isn't notable enough yet! --FeuDeJoie (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought I would add some points, seeing as you think i'm being "selfish", a lot of the information is incorrect, written in 2009, where does it say that in any reference? A lot of the information is unsourced, it has two reviews, both from Popjustice, good reviews albeit, but that isnt a "lot of information". But remember, this is a discussion, if the overall opinion is Keep, it should definitely be kept --FeuDeJoie (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Just thought i'd bring up another problem, if this article is to remain, the artwork needs formatting majorly, whoever uploaded that left no details, i'm amazed its been up for this long. --FeuDeJoie (talk) 18:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I seem to be commenting too much, but generally two comments for, against none opposed, probably means by the end of this discussion it should be kept, but the article, Lucky Day (Nicola Roberts song) needs to be changed to Lucky Day (song), there is no other song!! --FeuDeJoie (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Surely there's enough information to warrant the article being sustained? The release date is confirmed, there's a video, promotion has been planned, the single campaign has begun... There's no need to remove it simply because you can. And perhaps rather than ranting and raving on this page, where it's unlikely to be seen, you could take your comments to the actual discussion page for the article so someone can do something about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Az Butterfield (talk • contribs) 02:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for variants of WP:PLENTY and WP:CRYSTAL, then adding another helping of WP:ADHOM. BusterD (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Despite not having charted yet, the article have enough info to stand for its own. Plus, a music video for the song was already released, making it more notable. - Sauloviegas (talk) 23:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * An introduction of WP:LOTSOFSOURCES and actually the second point is legitimate. No offense. BusterD (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Shall we end this discussion, I think generally people think it should remain and I have no problem with that, I just thought that maybe since it hadnt charted and it wasnt really that documented that maybe it isn't notable enough. But im pretty sure we should keep it then --FeuDeJoie (talk) 13:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. I'm seeing lots of WP:ROUTINE entertainment buzz (these guys are paid to buzz and so not completely independent), but I'm not seeing significant coverage and with the release date a month away, I see no reason to assume this will be notable even then. No objection to userfying this page until WP:CRYSTAL no longer applies. BusterD (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologize if my critique of arguments above looks pointy. My intention is to demonstrate the actual weakness of the arguments made to keep. It may be that this song is notable enough for a page. I've expressed my assessment. But I'm not seeing strong arguments above, none which pass WP:CRYSTAL. Fine with userfying. One day this may in fact be notable. But not today. BusterD (talk) 20:26, 21 August 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.