Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R U Professional


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 10:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

R U Professional

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

A song someone made about Christian Bale's outburst. Apparently got mentioned in a few articles (though nearly all of the references are on the outburst, not on the song.) Notable? Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Discussed in a good deal of secondary sources. Will do some more research and expand/add more sources over time as well. Cirt (talk) 06:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment My question is, is the song notable, or is it only notable because it gets mentioned in articles about Christian Bale? If the latter, it would seem to fall under "inherited notability."  I'm not sure if there is an article about Bale's outburst, but maybe a section about this piece would be better served there instead? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with, below. It has had enough discussion on its own merit that it has its own independent notability. Cirt (talk) 06:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagree. The MTV article has one sentence about this song; most of the article is dedicated to another song.  The Dose.ca article is about a variety of items, and also dedicates but a sentence or two to the song.  Digital Spy, two sentences, among a variety of pop culture references to the tantrum.  Are we going to have an article about the Despair.com t-shirt?  The AV club gives it a sentence.  I can go on, but please check the references yourself.  --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay so we can respectfully agree to politely disagree. I happen to agree with that all together there is a good deal of secondary sources utilized to demonstrate notability. It would seem a back and forth and back and forth on this particular point may not be productive, perhaps we could wait and hear what others in the community think? Cirt (talk) 06:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course. I wanted to point out that the articles weren't just about this one song.  I'll be more than happy to go along with the decision.  --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: I think the sources in the 'Reception' section demonstrate notability. Lawshoot! 06:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for now. IT seems to have enough sources to write an article. Whether it violates WP:NOTNEWS i think can only be detirmined with more time.Yobmod (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2009 (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.