Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Playground (Lindsay Lohan 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. Single release dates, as released by sources other than (and sometimes even) the artist are notoriously unreliable. Folks, the word won't end if we don't get the article up until the song is out...'''. - Philippe 04:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Playground (Lindsay Lohan song)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - Fails WP:V, WP:CRYSTAL, and (so far) WP:NM. Ward3001 (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.   —Ward3001 (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Per Rolling Stone's report. The song will hit radio stations by September, prior to the album's release in November. --Efe (talk) 06:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * All that does is verify it. Wait until there are more sources; the song is still a long ways away in chart terms. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 11:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but deletion is not the ultimate choice. --Efe (talk) 11:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * When Rolling Stone anticipates release and when it will actually be released are different. We cannot trust Lohan's reliability until it is actually released. Ward3001 (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Neutral. Not a fan of single song entries, but it appears they are rather ubiquitous herein so singling out this one doesn't fan any outrage in me one way or the other. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - the Rolling Stone source is pretty straight forward about this. --T-rex 15:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * When Rolling Stone anticipates release and when it will actually be released are different. We cannot trust Lohan's reliability until it is actually released. Ward3001 (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes we can trust Rolling Stone. Furthermore I don't think there is any question over Lohan's reliability either. The fact that a trusted verifiable source means that this is a clear keep via WP:CBALL --T-rex 04:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge/Redirect to Spirit In the Dark. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 02:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This nomination appears to have been made in bad faith as some sort of vendetta against Lindsay Lohan. The article does not violate WP:CRYSTAL as it is supported by a verifiable source. Speculating that the single will not be released does violate WP:CRYSTAL since such speculation appear to stem from mere prejudice and not any verifiable source.--Bardin (talk) 05:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Your mindreading skills are off today, Bardin. I have no vendetta against Lindsay Lohan, despite your brazen, bad faith, POV assumptions. I think she's a great actress and singer and own several of her films and songs. But the article does, in fact, violate WP:CRYSTAL. So let me suggest you examine your own biases here. Ward3001 (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Unlike you, I do not listen to Lindsay Lohan. I'm a fan of heavy metal music - as my edits on wikipedia can testify - and as a general rule of thumb, metal fans tend not to listen to Lohan's music. So despite your suggestion, I have no bias to speak of. You are the one that raised the issue of Lohan's reliability or lack thereof, an issue that has absolutely no relevance to any of wikipedia's policies or guidelines. There is a reliable source verifying the information here and yet you dare question a source such as the Rolling Stones based on ... what? Your subjective perception of Lohan's reliability based on her past behavior? I'm sorry but I fail to see how that rationale is anything other than mere prejudice. Apparently, I'm not the only person here who thinks so either. By all means correct me if you can by pointing out the wikipedia policy or guideline that indicates how such a subjective and personal perception of an anonymous wikipedia editor on the reliability of some entertainer is a valid ground to argue for deletion of an article that is actually supported by a verifiable source in the form of a well known and regarded mainstream publication. --Bardin (talk) 06:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Obviously. They're judging Ms. Lohan. --Efe (talk) 05:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not nearly as much as you're judging us. See my comments above to Bardin. They apply to you as much or more. Please keep your comments focused on the issues, not the contributors. Ward3001 (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry. But, do not be subjective. --Efe (talk) 08:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Not enough coverage to justify inclusion of a single. There isn't anything to say about this song except the title, because it hasn't come out, so there isn't any charting, sales, or critical reception. Kww (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Usually singles article are made and there is no reliable source for its upcoming existance. This time we have a good source that it will be released and we are burning? Madness. — Realist 2  ( Who's Bad? ) 08:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: A very recognizable singer and actress. The single has been confirmed by MTV, Rolling Stone, and Perez Hilton. -DrewMaverick (talk) 22:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and Redirect to relative album. Most (or all for that matter) of the "keep votes" aren't aware of the policy on Wikipedia for songs and music singles (at WP:MUSIC) that states that "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." This song hasn't charted anywhere, won any awards or been performed by several artists. And per WP:CRYSTAL, we can't assume this will simply happen. Just because Lohan is a notable artist the song doesn't automatically inherit notability. And having a single article as the foundation of an article is simply ridiculous. Do U(knome)? yes... | or no  · 06:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Now this is a valid reason to nominate an article for deletion, one that is based on wikipedia's policies and guidelines. This is the sort of thing that I would expect from a nominator's rationale. I note though that the same policy you cite further states that a separate article 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. Given the artist in question is overwhelmingly mainstream (perhaps too much so), I find it hard to believe that the article is unlikely to grow beyond the stub that it currently is. There is, incidentally, nothing wrong with stubs and many good articles started off that very way. I believe most mainstream artists here on wikipedia have individual articles for each of their singles even when they have not charted, won awards or been covered by other artists. The reason, of course, being that there's still enough information to create an article around such issues as the critical reception, production details, the accompanying music video and so forth. When a single gets coverage from a mainstream publication like the Rolling Stone even before it is officially released, I would expect that even more coverage will be forthcoming when it is released. In any case, if this article had been nominated for deletion along your line, I honestly would not have bothered taking part in the AFD. It does not bother me in the least bit if this article gets deleted, only to reappear as it undoubtedly will if or when the single gets released. After all, I'm not a fan of the artist. I'm merely interested in expressing my objection to the nominator's ground for deletion as it does not appear to have been made in accordance with any of wikipedia's policies or guidelines but rather a personal prejudice against the artist and the perceived absence of reliability on her part. -Bardin (talk) 08:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For anyone who might be interested in my responses to Bardin's false accusations of bias, prejudice, and bad faith, see the discussion on Articles for deletion/Spirit In the Dark. Ward3001 (talk) 12:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * All your assumptions fail WP:CRYSTAL, as I just explained above. And User:Ward3001's rationale for deletion is perfectly fine in my view as it is congruent with mine; we both said that this fails the same policies. In addition I explained why, since it seemed that most people wouldn't bother reading the policies before going "I like", "it surely will chart" or "It's Lindsay Lohan, therefore the song is notable". As for User:Ward3001's bad faith, what makes you assume that? Just a simple legitimate Afd??? Do U(knome)? yes... | or no  · 05:56, 2 July 2008 (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.