Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miracles (Insane Clown Posse 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. Nomination and only delete vote have been withdrawn. (non-admin closure) --Darkwind (talk) 05:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Miracles (Insane Clown Posse song)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Once you remove the comedy websites and blogs, you find that the song has received no or little notable coverage. Sugar Bear (talk) 20:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Is being parodied on Saturday Night Live not notable coverage? After all, it does assume the video will be familiar to the audience. See also coverage in Slate magazine, The Portland Mercury, at MTV.com, The Boston Phoenix. Notability also suggested by comments on Something Awful. In summary, the video for this song has seem to have attracted a notable amount of attention, and even more so since its parody on Saturday Night Live. Moswento (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Portland Mercury and Boston Phoenix coverage is pretty trivial. (Sugar Bear (talk) 23:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC))
 * As far as the parodies go, I don't think that being referenced on Saturday Night Live and a comedy website is enough to form the basis of a Wikipedia article, especially not one that would eventually attain FA status. (Sugar Bear (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC))
 * "Sources are not currently up to FA status" is not a valid deletion criterion. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, as this song does not appear to meet the criteria as described in WP:Notability (music). Kansan (talk) 15:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears to me to pass the criterion "A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article." Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Easily passes the notability requirements. In addition to the sources mentioned above, the video is discussed in two separate billboard.com columns.  One is viral videos, and the other is daily noise, which includes a video feature in which the reporter states that "everyone is talking about" the Insane Clown Posse video. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 16:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you specify which notability requirements from WP:SONG this article passes? Kansan (talk) 16:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The song meets WP:GNG: significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. WP:SONG is not official Wikipedia policy, but from that criteria, the song has "been performed independently by several notable artists" (the cast of SNL) and "there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". Torchiest (talk | contribs) 16:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - A song about "Fuckin Magnets" (a shame you can't link to E.D. from here) is so epic that it must be kept. But seriously, it passes general notability guidelines as noted above.  WP:SONG is there to provide an extra later for music that does not pass WP:GNG, but it is not necessary to reference in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarc (talk • contribs)


 * Okay, it looks like there's enough coverage of the song to keep the article. I'm retracting my nomination. (Sugar Bear (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC))
 * Since there is still one outstanding opinion (Kansan) to delete, I think the discussion will have to run its course the full 7 days. Tarc (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's fine, we can keep it. Kansan (talk) 12:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So, since I retracted my nomination, and Kansan retracted his deletion vote, can we close this? (Sugar Bear (talk) 05:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC))
 * Um, what? I mean, I'm not going to close it as a basically inactive admin, but did we get rid of WP:SNOWBALL while I wasn't looking? Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per Moswento; nomination retracted anyway. Bearian (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per full disclosure, I'm the article creator. Multiple independent sources, plus internet meme status, plus SNL, plus Cracked.com (which is really popular apparently), etc. Aaron Bowen (talk) 09:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment — The writer of the Cracked piece is not really all that notable. And that article was particularly poorly-done, regardless. And while the song is notable, there is no evidence that it is an Internet meme. The SNL parody is notable, though. (Sugar Bear (talk) 05:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC))
 * I'm sorry, are we now judging the value of sources not merely on the notability of the publication but the individual author? Because if so, I know of next to no newspapers that would survive such a purge. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: fucking notability, how does it work? (actually quite well; the SNL parody is enough, as it was for "Hide and Seek") Sceptre (talk) 11:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, it takes something interesting for me to log-in these days, but I had to chime in on this. People haven't heard of this song yet? Miracle.  --Bobak (talk) 16:55, 24 April 2010 (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.