Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexxx Dreams


 * 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   redirect to Artpop. Spartaz Humbug! 20:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Sexxx Dreams

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nothing to indicate in being notable in its own right. Does not meet the WP:GNG and seems to fail WP:NSONGS. Making a single chart appearance on a component chart in a minor country, does not add to its notability much at all. STATic message me!   05:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment – Does multiple live performance of the song and controversy of lyrics assert notability? If not then Delete. — Indian: BIO · [ ChitChat  ] 05:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You thought differently not that long ago. There is plenty of material for a Wikipedia article. - Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That was likely since he was in the middle of searching for information and found no in-depth coverage, am I correct ? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I had initially even copied it to my sandbox, I removed it from there also. There is simply nothing that warranties a concrete major article, independent, like "Artpop". — Indian: BIO · [ ChitChat  ] 16:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep – Seeing the massive development and content addition, I believe this article passes GNG and can be kept. — Indian: BIO · [ ChitChat  ] 05:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Artpop or Delete – fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS, no in-depth coverage independent of Artpop. The only chart included is just a download chart, anyway. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Article blatantly fails WP:NSONG and so should be deleted. Acalycine(talk/contribs) 05:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete – No stand-alone coverage of the song, and placing on a download chart does not assert notability. Holiday56 (talk) 08:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. I would be careful to call South Korea a minor country! Samsung, which currently has a lot of technological influence, is a South Korean company. With regards to the entry could it be moved? It was produced after all by Lady Gaga.User talk: Ctfn 14:12 03 April 2014 (BST). — Preceding undated comment added 13:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - I am not convinced about the utility of the article as it does not have any added value. User talk:BenoitHoog 15:15 03 April 2014 (GMT+1) — Preceding undated comment added 13:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep as creator. I don't understand why stubs for notable subjects are considered worthy of deletion. Basic research reveals that the song clearly meets notability criteria. The article just needs to be expanded further. Also, this can always just be redirected, so no need to waste time at AfD. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Unless in-depth coverage on the song can be found from reliable sources that is not from album reviews or from Gaga herself speaking on the matter, it fails notability. It could be redirected, but per WP:NSONGS and WP:GNG it is not notable. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The subject is notable and the redirect serves a function and helps to improve Wikipedia. Song titles often redirect to album articles, and certainly songs that have charted and direct readers to highly successful (commercial) albums should be should exist. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but no, it isn't notable- too little information available to expand beyond stub. Charting doesn't always automatically make a song notable, particularly when the source talking about its charting only does so briefly, is from a download chart, and has low positioning. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, well, agree to disagree. Either way, I think the redirect serves a purpose. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep or redirect to Artpop. — Status  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 18:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Please provide a reason for your vote, as votes without reasons essentially carry no weight. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Sources:


 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuAlDSBLF9M ArtRave
 * http://www.ryanseacrest.com/2013/11/12/lady-gaga-talks-artpop-sex-dreams-sleep-issues-relationship-with-taylor-kinney/
 * http://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2013/nov/04/lady-gaga-10-things-learned-artpop (described as a "Vanity 6-esque strut")
 * http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/11/anyone-else-bummed-out-by-lady-gagas-em-artpop-em/281335/ ("'Sexxx Dreams' doses Prince's 'Little Red Corvette' with some dread and Gaga using lust as therapy: 'I just want this to be perfect / because I’m broken.'")
 * http://buzzworthy.mtv.com/2013/11/11/lady-gaga-artpop-review-art/ (as part of track-by-track review)
 * http://getoutmag.com/choreography-concept-by-yanis-marshall-sexxx-dreams-lady-gaga-directed-fernando-de-azevedo/
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/31/arts/music/on-stage-lady-gagas-artistry-endures.html?_r=0 (a bit of detail about Roseland performance)
 * http://www.muumuse.com/2013/08/lady-gaga-sex-dreams-artpop-rehearsal-itunes-festival.html/
 * http://vimeo.com/79536070
 * http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/lady-gaga-reveals-weird-sex-2672693
 * http://www.contactmusic.com/story/lady-gaga-s-weird-sex-dreams_3932351
 * http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1713411/lady-gaga-itunes-festival-performance.jhtml (iTunes Festival)
 * http://www.nme.com/news/lady-gaga/72375
 * http://www.popjustice.com/briefing/why-the-next-lady-gaga-single-shouldnt-be-the-one-she-might-want-it-to-be/119452/
 * http://www.gigwise.com/news/83914/Lady-Gaga-unveils-'Sex-Dreams'-ahead-of-iTunes-festival-gig
 * http://www.sugarscape.com/main-topics/music/960922/rihanna-team-lady-gaga-new-track-sex-dreams (Rihanna?)
 * http://www.idolator.com/7481949/lady-gaga-artpop-sex-dreams-preview

Of course, this does not include many other song reviews included in track-by-track reviews of Artpop. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Mirror is a tabloid thus unreliable to begin with. The YouTube link is only of her performing a song, no coverage whatsoever there. No coverage in Vimeo either, which is just a lyric video. Idolator only has medium-level coverage. Popjustice and NME aren't even dedicated to the song, and only provide medium-level coverage on the song. Muumuse is also only medium-level coverage. Sugarscape has questionable reliability. Gigwise isn't loading. MTV and NY Times are only reviews on performances promoting the album, so those doesn't count. ContactMusic and Ryan Seacrest are only self-promoition, so those also don't count. MTV Buzzworthy, The Atlantic, and The Guardian are album reviews, so those don't count either. Sorry but there's not enough to supply an article. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sources like these are used all the time to help construct articles. In that sense, they do "count". -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In this case, I meant they don't count as notable coverage. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you need to adjust your expectation from reviewers frankly. They do not and will never independently write reviews about album tracks and has never done that. However, the fact that they are talking about an album track in a review suggests that particular track is standing out to the reviewer or critic, thus asserting its notability independently. — Indian: BIO · [ ChitChat  ] 05:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, WP:NSONGS indicates it needs independent in-depth coverage, whether it is a review or simply talking about commercial performance or anything. So far, there are no reliable sources that give it independent in-depth coverage, which means it fails WP:NSONGS. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * My statement was a general response, nto pertaining to this article, this one still fails NSONGS. — Indian: BIO</b> · [ ChitChat  ] 06:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Very well. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect it would be nice to have the history saved incase the song ever establishes enough notability to have an article re-created.  Gloss •  talk  21:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A redirect is plausible, but it's definitely too soon for this to have its own article. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Artpop. Generally, album tracks can support standalone articles provided there is enough coverage in reliable sources. I'm not seeing that WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS have been met in this case, however.  Gongshow   talk  23:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Artpop per WP:NSONGS. Deletion seems unnecessary in this case since there is a logical target that it can be directed/merged to. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 14:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as the song is non-notable. Northern Antarctica (₵) 05:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. People on here is saying that it should be deleted unless it has notibility, and then someone even said that it had less notability than Artpop. I don't see how, both the song Artpop, and Sexxx Dreams both charted somewhere in the world, except the biggest things that I think make Sexxx Dreams so notable is how Sexxx Dreams was initially planned to be the albums lead single instead of Applause, plus there was several notable performances of Sexxx Dreams. Jacobjimmy2000 (talk) 05:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * You have not explained how the song is significant. The claim it was meant to be the lead single is unsourced, and just because a song is performed during a notable set, does not make the song notable. STATic message me!   05:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Artpop. The sources listed above are not substantial (to be honest, I find the "throw everything, no matter how brief at AFD, and see what sticks" school of sourcing unhelpful), and I don't believe the song meets the WP:GNG.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC).


 * Keep There might be a need for some copy edits and rewording, but the article seems fine to stand on its own without being redirected. --<span style="text-shadow:#BD33A4 0em 0em 0.8em,#FF007F -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#0247FE 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;"> Gourami Watcher  (?) 16:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. That the song has charted somewhere is generally a good reason to regard it as notable. Our job is to provide information for our readers, and in the world of pop music that means we have to be able to tell them about music they might reasonably have heard. Getting into a chart is usually a good indicator of this. RomanSpa (talk) 06:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Does not pass WP:NSONGS even after considering all sources mentioned above. Harsh (talk)  09:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * (Just to be clear, and of course this is not meant to change your vote, but the sources posted above were among the first I came across to help expand the article. They don't represent all of the sources I could find on the subject.) -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:25, 15 April 2014 (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.