Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sleazy (Kesha 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. (non-admin closure) — Parent5446 ☯ ([ msg] email) 03:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Sleazy (Kesha song)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

According to WP:NSONG "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." <--- One review, one mention of its release and 2 references retaining to the album is not past stub class. I wrote the article two months ago, and it has not received significant coverage in any way shape or form, so per WP:BOLD ive redirected the article. Lets break this down some more, according to WP:N and more importantly, WP:GNG an article is only allowed if the topic has received significant coverage, again, one review is not at all significant coverage, if you think so, you need to re-read WP:N and WP:GNG. '''"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." All information is covered under Cannibal (EP), so no significant coverage'''. Please weigh in. - (CK)Lakeshade  -  talk2me  - 01:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The song charted in Canada and US, and this is enough for have its own article. The owner main contributor of the article redirected it because all his work will be crap when he intend to nominate Cannibal (EP), We R Who We R (and upcoming singles) to be joined with Featured topic candidates/Animal (album)/archive1. See this and its reason for deletion. Redirect because it is a "stub", excuse me but according to him this is not a stub. Also how many articles must be redirected due they are stubs, and if you are going to argue something not use the stupid argument "OTHERSTUFFEXIST", use it until WP:OSE really stop being an essay and become a rule. Tb hotch ™ and  ©  02:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is absolutely one of the reasons i redirected the article. According to wikipedia rules, per WP:GNG, "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material", are you going to tell me that this article has significant coverage when we cant even identify the genre? Now your argument is that the song charted? so its notable? Okay, my argument to that is, per WP:NSONG, "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts [...] are probably notable", key word in this, is probably, not every charting song gets a page, WP:NSONG goes on to say "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." So your vote to keep the article is based on personal opinion not on factual based rules. Also, you said i called the song Start Class, truthfully i didnt read the guidelines on that, i thought Start came before Stub, that was my fault but im not going to change it. - (CK)Lakeshade  -  talk2me  - 02:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I wonder where the original researches are, because I see no statement without a proper source (at least in its current status). Yes informaton is difficult to find, but you can work with stuff you already have 1 2 3 4. Tb hotch ™ and  ©  02:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Source one, "raves that “the beat so fat gonna make me come” on the apropos “Sleazy,” ", not a review, nothing to do with composition. Source four is already in the article. Are you beginning to see why i redirected the article?, it is extremely difficult and i dont think at all possible to expand this stub. - (CK)Lakeshade  -  talk2me  - 02:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * According to the dictionary "apropos" means "Of an appropriate or pertinent nature", it is an adjetive, therefore it is a review in a single word. BTW I said difficult, not impossible. Tb hotch ™ and  ©  02:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Bahah, oops, didnt even notice thought it meant something completely different. But as i said in the rule above, articles unlikely (you just said difficult) are to be redirected, this is what i am trying to get across, the chances of this expanding beyond stub class is very, very unlikely. - (CK)Lakeshade  -  talk2me  - 02:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's check if this article is a stub or a start-class article, according to the quality scale used by WP:SONGS:
 * Stub: The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information (neither) that will need much work to become a meaningful article. It is usually very short, but if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible (neither), an article of any length falls into this category.
 * Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition.


 * As you can read "Sleazy" is not a stub, (We've Got) Honey Love is a stub.
 * Start: The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas, usually in referencing. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent (we can ignore this points, this is untrue in this article); but the article should satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability (NSONGS) and BLP, and provide enough sources to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted.
 * Provides some meaningful content, but the majority of readers will need more.


 * As you can read, this article meets the start-class criteria. Tb hotch ™ and  ©  03:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Stub, "The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article." This is not a detailed meaningful article. You my argue this if you wish, but we should both back off and let other weigh in. - (CK)Lakeshade  -  talk2me  - 03:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep While it is a small article, it is not a stub and fits in with the notability guidelines and WP:NSONG. It's size is only because it is a promo single, as most other promo singles I've seen are about the same size, if not smaller than this article. -- Cprice1000 talk2me  19:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC) Delete I agree with Lakeshade's reasonings.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Which part, about the pseudo-stub article that may never be a GA or the part he wouldn't work in this article because he didn't find information, which by the way, didn't take me one day. Tb hotch ™ and  ©  04:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops sorry I just based my opinion on the article while looking at the previous version here, (This was where I was directed too the first time I was asked for my opinion) but now that I looked at the new updates I do believe that it can easily have the potential for going beyond a stub, so i now support to keep--Blackjacks101 (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: The fact that there is enough sourced material (which passes WP:V and WP:RS) to write a decent article is the proof that the subject is notable. Europe22 (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: While a small article, it holds a lot of information, and passes WP:NSONGS. It can be compared to the promotional singles such as Favorite Girl, or Never Let You Go (Justin Bieber song), which contain decent articles, so I believe Sleazy should be kept. Candy  o32  - Happy New Year :) 22:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: The song charted in the US and Canada, which establishes notability. Nickyp88 (talk) 22:21, 14 January 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.