Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sugar (music video)


 * 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) Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Sugar (music video)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unnecessary content fork from Sugar (Maroon 5 song). –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:SPINOFF. The music video is rather notable to warrant its own article. Interesting that the nominator gets in an argument with the creator of the article in regards to another article and then nominates a recent article he created for deletion... — Status  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 17:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also interesting that I !voted delete on a similar discussion very recently. I was not aware that Tomica created this page, nor do I care about getting petty revenge on an uncivil editor. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep. Again, this user above (the nominator), comes at articles he didn't even read and only AfD or trims them [like he did on "Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)" (or specifically its lead)] when it doesn't get the idea of the article. As a creator of this music video article, it's over 30kb long, it's notable per its concept, inspiration and filming. The section in the song article summarizes is it, as its much more longer than its on the song. Also agree with Status, making vengeance towards me and my good faith edits on Wikipedia. — Tomíca (T2ME) 17:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You and Status should both read WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, particularly the section about arguments to the person. This is a deletion discussion about the article and only the merits of the article should be discussed. Your opinions of me and your disputes with me on unrelated articles are not relevant here. Now, getting on topic... the size of the song and music video articles combined is roughly 51kb (that would go down without an extra lead section for the music video), which according to WP:SIZERULE doesn't necessarily warrant a split. That, combined with the fact that most songs do not have individual articles on their music videos, and the fact that the song article isn't very large (the video article is currently larger!!), and that is why I don't think there should be two articles. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Your argument is totally WP:POV. I am gonna expand the article since it's began to rise commercially, and when that happens there will be no place for this large info which is now a separate article, both of them combined NOW are 60kb, and believe later it will be even more. — Tomíca (T2ME) 18:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * POV is a policy pertaining to articles. Of course a deletion discussion is going to include personal opinion. Common sense. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Though people's like you POV... — Tomíca (T2ME) 18:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ...are just as relevant as yours. Enough arguments to the person and snide comments; please discuss the article nominated for deletion. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  18:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  18:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - per Status and Tomica. The video is literally the thing that pushed the song up the charts. Besides that, the article is certainly long enough. It is pretty obvious that this is just an attempt at vengeance, after what went down here, and a rather weak one at that. MaRAno '' FAN 17:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The point was already brought up (and shot down) above. But nice attempt at trying to bandwagon. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Shot down- according to you! I (pretty sure Status too) still think this is a WP:REVENGE. — Tomíca (T2ME) 20:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether or not it is, (I've already explained how it isn't) I have given valid reasons for why this article does not need to exist that (imo) have not sufficiently been addressed. The vast majority of the comments here are off-topic attempts at obscuring the discussion. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Since you are not owner of Wikipedia, it has other users here including us, let them tell their opinion and respect it too. Us 3 think it should stay, thus respect the decision. — Tomíca (T2ME) 20:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The point of a discussion is that not everyone is going to agree. I respect the fact that the three of you disagree with me; however, I do not respect the off-topic banter about "revenge" when I have already given valid reasons for deletion. I will gladly discuss the merits of the article with you, but I refuse to engage in anymore petty banter. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:15, 1 February 2015 (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.