Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perform This Way


 * 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. There was consensus of people who addressed the question that the article met GNG, which is sufficient. joe deckertalk to me 20:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Perform This Way

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article fails WP:NSONGS in that it has not charted on a national record chart, nor has it been performed (mind the pun) by multiple notable artists or won awards. The information contained is already present in the article for the song which this is based on, Born This Way (song). Additionally its not notable per WP:GNG as virtually all of the references are primary. An independent article simply isn't required where there isn't sufficient detail. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  01:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The song received widespread media attention when it was disapproved by Gaga's manager, more attention when Gaga provided approval, more attention when the album release and summer tour was announced. Article is referenced with citations to the Los Angeles Times, TMZ, and New York Times, these are more than sufficient to meet WP:GNG.--RadioFan (talk) 02:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are secondary sources. Material is worthy of coverage in Wikipedia—I think a separate article is reasonable, but if not, it can be merged into the album's article. —C.Fred (talk) 02:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * comment WP:NSONGS is implicit that songs which have not charted are not notable. Equally its only notable because Gaga denied permission for the song to be released only to back track. Its not notable because it actually receieved mentions of its own merits. A lof of the sourcing is Yankonvic's own personal blog. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  21:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NSONGS is a guideline tells us what is probably notable. It is not implicit in telling us what isn't notable. There are 3 citations out of 10 which are to the artist's blog, the remainder are to reliable, non-primary sources where the song and related controversy has been widely covered.  This is sounding a bit like WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--RadioFan (talk) 23:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not at all rather, allow me to quote the guideline to you because it appears to be misunderstood. The opening line of the guideline states: This page provides a guideline of how the concept of notability applies to topics related to music, including artists and bands, albums, and songs. Not that this guideline tells us what's probably notable. The following line states probability (that I will accept): Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Let me then point out the following lines Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. It is this latter part of the guideline which I'm alluding to, the fact that the song has been released for over a month and has failed to chart. A significant proportion of the information here is already mentioned at Born This Way (song) and the relevence of the song being recorded and released is more relevant in the album's page. Taking all that into account, an independent article for this song breaches our notability guideline. And as for the number of references taken from the personal blog, its information source from the blog not the volume of references that counts here. This is a case of trying to enforce our notability guideline not some case of fans vs. no fans, which its trying to be made out to be. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  23:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't counting references, I was refuting your claim that "a lot" of the sourcing came from a primary source. That's not the case with nearly 3/4 coming from reliable sources. Also, I think you are a bit confused as the song has not been released so it remains to be seen if it will chart.  Charting while and excellent way to meet WP:NSONGS but it's not the only way.  A song that has garnered so much attention, even before its released, certainly meets WP:GNG.  I'm a bit confused by your last comment, do you wish the article deleted or merged?  If it's the later, that could be done in a far less disruptively by tagging the article with merge and sharing your thoughts on the matter on the article's talk page.--RadioFan (talk) 01:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The guideline speaks of a detailed article. This is not a detailed article. The reference in the infobox suggests that the song has was released on April 25, 2011. Independent articles should not exist where information is not detailed, and where the information is better served elsewhere. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  02:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —RadioFan (talk) 23:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.  —RadioFan (talk) 23:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge to Born This Way (song). In the event that the song charts independently, it can be split off.  Joe407 (talk) 05:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to pursue this as a recommendation, a note should be left on that article's talk page. The little monsters are not likely to take the suggestion well.--RadioFan (talk) 02:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would support this motion. Merge to Born This Way (song) would be a good compromise in that the only thing which may make this song is coverage it recieved regarding Gaga's initial disapproval of the cover. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  23:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not a good compromise. The song is independently notable, and is supported by significant coverage in 3rd party sources where the song is the subject of the coverage.--RadioFan (talk) 23:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: Per Radio's assertion of notability, because most other Weird Al singles have articles, and because it most likely has charted on a comedy-centered chart  Purpleback pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  02:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Per WP:Other stuff exists and WP:WAX the existance of other Weird Al song articles does not make this one notable. Equally the likelihood of charting doesn't make it notable. If its charted brilliant, add it to the article, if it hasn't we're certainly not gonna speculate. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  23:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge to "BTW". That's the best option. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 17:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep It's a notable song by a notable artist. And if it does get merged it should be to Alpocalypse, because it is going to appear on that album. JDDJS (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per RadioFan's arguments. Also note that the nominator's above argument that "its only notable because Gaga denied permission for the song to be released only to back track" makes an admission that the song is, in fact, notable. --Maxamegalon2000 20:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I remember the WP:FICT wars, and the general consensus from then is that if a subject is notable under the General Notability Guideline, it is notable even if it fails a subject-specific notability guideline. As RadioFan has shown this, and as I can vividly remember the multitude of sources from the end of April, this is notable. Sceptre (talk) 23:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep BMI, Billboard, Los Angeles Times and TMZ are not primary sources, as stated by nominator. VK per above. ۞   Tb hotch ™ &  (ↄ),  Problems with my English?  05:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Growing weary of these ridiculous discussions. An obvious delete.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   15:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep or merge The article has some independent notability, with coverage in several reliable sources. At the moment I feel it could easily be merged into Born This Way (song), however with further info yet to come (music video, other promotion and coverage) it is probable that much of this will be lost in a merge. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete It is not notable enough. It has not charted stronger articles have been deleted. The information is useless and it is not very well written and if not deleted it should be merged with BTW article. FeuDeJoie


 * Keep - Charting or covers by multiple artists mean a song is probably notable under WP:NSONGS, but not charting or having been covered does not make a song non-notable if the song meets WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 14:17, 6 June 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.