Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychosocial (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. Nakon 01:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Psychosocial (song)

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

Contested redirect of non-notable song scheduled for release. Fails WP:MUSIC. Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I also oppose deletion of this article. I would be for the deletion of this article if this was just a random song but it's not, it is the first single.  This is a notable song so it should be kept. Thrashr7 (talk) 08:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.118.55.184 (talk)
 * I oppose deletion of this article. Just because it has not been released yet doesn't mean it's unnotable. If we delete this article, we'll have to delete Coldplay's next single, or KoRn's, or Disturbed's. You gonna do that? And Mdsummermsw, just becuase you don't believe it isnt notable doesn't mean you're correct. Jasca Ducato (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. We can't predict notability of any individual songs.  Jasca, I would encourage you to read WP:AADD in entirety - your paragraph hits about three or four arguments in there. As for whether it's a correct assessment, that's why we're here in AFD, to see if there is correctness in the suggestion that it's not notable. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 20:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * KeepI believe this article should be kept because it IS a notable song, it's the first single from their upcoming album. I do also believe the single will become more notable and the article will improve upon it's release, but I feel these arguments have already been dismissed by Dennis The Tiger.  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  20:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I oppose deletion, it's not a random song it is a single, like Slipknot's first eleven (that all have articles). I don't see how it can fail WP:MUSIC when it's not about a song. As was noted on the articles talk page, why does a template for "Future singles" exist, if none of them are notable?  Black  ngold29   20:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We still need to demonstrate notability. Rather than argue the point, please read up on WP:MUSIC.  Outside of this you'll likely get nowhere. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 20:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - for what it's worth, I have no prejudice to recreation if it does become notable. Meantime, it needs to be demonstrated as notable for the present time.  To say it's notable in the future is what I call crystalballery - because we are not, quite frankly, a crystal ball.  -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 20:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand that there is little notability at the moment, but as I stated, the reason for the proposed deletion is incorrect. How can a single fail WP:MUSIC? What's the notability policy on singles?  Black  ngold29   20:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Yes, it's a single. Like that article says, a single is a song. How do we know if a song is notable? WP:MUSIC. How do we know if a song will be notable? We don't. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A single is not a song. A single is basically an album which usually contains about three songs. This article is not about the song "Spit It Out", it is about the single entitled Spit It Out.  Black  ngold29   21:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this whole discussion is a waste of time because in a few weeks time the article will be recreated because it WILL be notable, I guarantee it. I know this isn't reason for keeping it I just consider this whole process to be pointless. As a result of it's deletion I believe that there may be IP contributions contradicting this AfD nomination too considering the popularity of the band are you then going to request the page to be protected? It's all just a waste of time.  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  21:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, I think we all realize that there is about a 1% chance that this will not chart. Why delete now, when in two weeks we'll have to just re-do the whole thing? I see this more as a WP:IGNORE than Crystal Ball.  Black  ngold29   21:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Thetrick (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Wait until there are more sources and/or until it gets at least halfway up the charts. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * May I pose the question that do you guys think that it is at the benefit of Wikipedia to remove this article or is it just a formality? Because if this just a formality shouldn't we follow WP:IGNORE? I see the reasons for deletion as nothing more than a formality based on Wikipedia's standards, I don't see Wikipedia immediately benefiting by the loss of this article of what effectively is 2 weeks.  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  21:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We follow WP:IGNORE, indeed. However, this is not the time. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 22:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Which of those point are you referring to?  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  22:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK see WP:UIAR. "If there's a better way to do something than what the rules say, do it the better way." Do you believe that deleting this article so that it is open to a lot of IP vandalism and to eventually be recreated in two weeks the "better way"?  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  22:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually see a music single that we have nothing conclusive on whether it will meet WP:MUSIC on release. Popular? Sure.  Chart information?  If it's not on the air, it's not on the charts, right?  Vandalism is trivial for the article - that's what WP:CSD is for.  Recreated in two weeks?  What if it isn't popular?  Pessimal outlook, but then we don't want to set a precedent that opposes WP:CRYSTAL - for good reason, in my opinion. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 23:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Why does the "Future single" template exist then?  Black  ngold29   23:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As much as you may keep regurgitating these Wikipedia standards, I cannot comprehend the benefit it may have on Wikipedia by deleting this article, it's beyond logic. It is just creating more work for editors and removing information from the encyclopaedia. I will accept the decision of deletion if this is the case but it is clear to me that there is no logic behind it, at all.  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  23:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's back up here, as I stated earlier this article is not about a song. It is about a single. There is a difference, which I outlined above. I see a "Single" as basically a limited release album which contains (usually) three songs. Per the policy on albums, "may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources". This single has been mentioned by Blabbermouth, MetalHammer, Roadrunner Records, Rolling Stone, and the band's official website. Aren't those reliable sources?  Black  ngold29   23:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm backing Blackngold29 here. He's listed plenty of reliable sources to keep the article. Jasca Ducato (talk) 23:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as WP:CRYSTAL. There just isn't a guarantee that this single will chart. Bands that sell millions of records still have singles tank sometimes. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep &mdash; there are a number of reliable sources which give significant coverage to this single. It easily passes the general notability guidelines for Wikipedia, and given that it is a single by a major band, there is little reasonable doubt that it will chart.  Wikipedia may not be a crystal ball, but the language on WP:MUSIC is inclusive rather than exclusive &mdash; editors arguing that it fails to meet those guidelines because it has not charted are missing the point, and being rather bloody-minded about it to boot &mdash; to wit "A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article".  This easily meets that standard.  All songs which meet the specific guidelines are notable; some notable songs may not meet those guidelines &mdash; for example, why do we have a future single template if not for this exact reason?  You don't even have to ignore any rules to keep this song &mdash; it already meets the guidelines for inclusion, and only a narrow and incorrect reading of guidelines could possibly claim it is not notable. --Haemo (talk) 10:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - In context, the three full sentances of WP:MUSIC, to me, mean: #1: Most songs are not notable. #2: Here are some that probably are notable. #3: But if there isn't enough material, merge anyway. - Mdsummermsw (talk)
 * If it is still going to be argued that WP:MUSIC applies in this case (which it doesen't, see above); then at the very least due to the wide coverage, it does meet WP:MUSIC.  Black  ngold29   16:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Single (music) "In the record industry, a single is a song usually extracted from a current or upcoming album to promote the album." Album "...tracks released separately as commercial singles". iTunes "Single of the Week"? It's a song. We can, I guess, agree that WP:MUSIC should have something to say. If singles are not songs, which section applies? Certainly not "musicians and ensembles", "composers and lyricists" or "Others". If you want to say singles is are "Albums", I think you'll have an uphill battle. That leaves either "Songs" or WP:MUSIC forgot that singles are so common. We're also left with the peculiar notion the singles, often said to be "off of" or "from" certain albums are something other than the songs. Unless you have some compelling argument that a single is not a song, I'm left with simply agreeing to disagree. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's my thoughts then: How do you consider this a song? It was a CD which contained three songs, not one. If that is denied or disputed, then what exactly do you consider "Don't Get Close" or "Disasterpiece"? Another thing...It has been asked four times now, why the template exists, no answer has been given. By the standards for notability of a single given, a single cannot achieve notablily until after it is released. Therefore, if the people who support the deletion of this article hold to their beliefs, then they should also delete every other article in Category:Upcoming singles.   Black  ngold29   18:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - How do I consider "Duality (song)" a song"? Well, let's read the article: "Duality is the name of the first single from Slipknot's third studio album Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses). They performed this song on various late night talk shows in support of the new album. The song is also featured on Slipknot's live album 9.0: Live. It was written by the lead vocalist Corey Taylor and is the most successful single regarding charts produced by Slipknot." -It seems the editors of that article consider it a "song". And it has a music video for that song. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a non-notable article and it can be recreated (if need be) after the release, if it falls under the notability guidelines of WP:MUSIC and only then. MOTE Speak to me 09:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe this discussion is going anywhere, I'm sure most parties have had their say on the matter so we need a decision.  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  10:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And at the moment, there is no consensus with regards to where the article stands. In such a case, Wikipedia have a policy of keeping such articles (I believe); just wanted to point that out. Jasca Ducato (talk) 10:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And Mdsummermsw, I just read your comment on Talk:Psychosocial. Why are Moving Mountains (song) and High Price notable songs, and not this one? I've never even heard of Ciara. Jasca Ducato (talk) 12:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess he thinks it's notable because while it's a future single, it has still charted. However:
 * Keep, I know Mdsummermsw's labeling this article an AfD for formality standards, because he's done it to some other singles I've been recently looking at. Anyways, for one thing Blackngold29 is right about the future single template. There is no way it was created with the sole purpose that every single "charts, therefore asserting its notability," which is basically one main requirement of WP:MUSIC, because not every single charts, or is even released to radio stations. Anyways, I said it before but I'll say it again since AfDs are going around like hot cakes, it's just a little odd because I can't tell you how many articles there are for singles that didn't chart, or did but have absolutely no mention of chart position. True, most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, but I believe songs that are uniquely sold as singles separate from the collective whole are, in fact, notable. WP:MUSIC#SONGS doesn't even cover the notability of singles, it covers the notability songs. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Go look up single on Wikipedia.  A single is a song packaged with 2 or 3 other songs to promote the album it is being released on.  Before the internet existed, singles had their own package, including cover art, a track listing page, even a booklet and a CD.  Singles should not be considered as songs, but as albums.  I realize the article is entitled "Psychosocial (song)", and if it is to stay that way, I agree with deletion, but we should instead change it to "Psychosocial (single)" to make it more appropriate.  dude527 (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, changing the parameter from "(song)" to "(single)" would make no difference. Either the article's content asserts its notability on Wikipedia, or it doesn't. That's what this discussion is about. Besides, we're trying to keep all similar articles (members, albums, songs, etc) pertaining to Slipknot concise, and changing one song article's parameter to something else would mean doing it to the other song articles with parameters in their titles. The article uses a song template and is categorized as a single, so the including "(single)" in the parameter does little more to distinguish this. The article's content and notability are the only real key factors in deciding whether or not it is kept or deleted. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 05:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I think you fail to see my point. This article is not notable as a song, no.  But technically, it shouldn't be about a song, it's about a single.  Singles are albums in themselves, in a sense of speaking.  They have their own jewel case, CD, booklet, track listing, etc, etc.  This article should not focus on a song, but on a single, which, in theory, makes WP:MUSIC an invalid rule to apply to this article, making it notable.  Do you see what I'm saying? dude527 (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I do Dude527, I've been saying the same thing all along. I have no problem with the page being moved to "single".  Black  ngold29   18:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, I already saw what you were saying. I own CD singles, I know exactly what they are. You don't see what I'm trying to say. Changing the parameter doesn't make a difference on the content of the article. Besides, so far the article already focuses on the song as a single. It makes no sense to think that changing the parameter to go against the norm of other single articles, as well as other Slipknot single articles, will deem it any more notable. "(single)" brings little more focus to the song as a single, when you see every other way the article reads as a single, and not just another song from an album. That's why I say content is key in deciding if the article kept or deleted, and has nothing to do with changing the parameter to something so similar, just to get across the already well-demonstrated point that this article is about a single. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 18:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Well then, this isn't notable. The information is even inaccurate as the article is about a single, not a song.  Labeling it "song" is making this article even more inaccurate.  Labeling this article as a standalone song renders it non-notable and it should be redirected, or the content should be changed.  I just don't see the accuracy in saying the article is about a single, but labeling it as a song.  If you want it to be notable, you'd best change the content to focus on the song, or change the title to focus on the single. dude527 (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The first line of the article read; "Psychosocial is a single&hellip;, so the article is about the single. Jasca Ducato (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It doesn't seem that way, the content seems to be written more about a song then a single. Example: "It is scheduled to enter airplay on June 30, 2008,[2] and will be released as a digital single on July 1, 2008.[3] and on June 21, 2008 a 30-second preview of the single was released by Nuclear Blast." dude527 (talk) 19:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I guarentee that further info will be added when it becomes avalible. The physical CD single does not have a track listing or release date set, though the official Slipknot site says the info will be avalible shortly.  Black  ngold29   19:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna come right out with it, dude527, you have a weird outlook on how to represent a single. The example you used is exactly how to represent a single. The single is scheduled to hit the radio, so how else do you recommend saying it? The single will be released as A DIGITAL SINGLE; how else do you suggest we note this? A 30-second preview of THE SINGLE was released by Nuclear Blast; what was released as a 30-second preview? THE SINGLE. These are things that appear on album articles as well, release dates, previews, etc. But wait a sec, don't you feel singles should be treated like albums? Because we got that covered. But you're forgetting that singles are songs, pieces of music. We're not going to not mention its attributes as a song just because it was pressed on a piece of plastic and sent to radio stations. I feel we balance the song as both a single, and where it stands as a song, just fine. It isn't even out yet, we're doing the best we can here. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 07:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm just saying, if you want to avoid the article's deletion as per WP:MUSIC, the content should be changed accordingly, as this article is not about a song, but a single. dude527 (talk) 09:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And how do you sugegst we do that? As Rtiztik just said, everything there is about the single. Jasca Ducato (talk) 11:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - a confirmed single from a highly notable band. This is verified so WP:CRYSTAL does not apply. --T-rex 17:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, blabbermouth.com is acceptable. If song turns out to be non-notable flop, then revisit later. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 09:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and WP:MUSIC. There is nothing notable about it. Merge it into the artists page if you like but until the song (single?) charts it is not worthy of an entry in an encyclopedia.  Gtstricky Talk or C 19:50, 29 June 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.