Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swine (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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Swine (song)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. No in-depth coverage independent of Artpop. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete – Per nom, and there were two live performances that does not warrant enough material for a separate article. It charted on two charts, the first in a minor market, and the second a minor chart of a major market. Essentially easily sourced in Artpop. — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat ] 06:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Tending towards Keep following the immense development and content added by Another Believer it does pass notability based on the third party sources talking about its performance. — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat ] 05:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep – The article passes WP:NOTABILITY now and can be kept as a standalone article. Thanks to for making this happen. — Indian: BIO   · [ ChitChat ] 05:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Lacks the significant independent coverage in reliable sources required to have a separate article per WP:NSONGS. STATic message me!   07:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep as creator. 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 ) 16:06, 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 redirect clearly serves a function and is helpful to the encyclopedia. I have redirected both Sexxx Dreams and Swine, for now. I still believe these are notable and just need further expansion. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * They are not notable unless they have in-depth coverage from multiple reliable sources that aren't album reviews or Gaga herself talking about them per WP:NSONGS. 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 ) 17:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep or redirect to Artpop. — Status  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 18:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Changed to keep. Article has been heavily expanded, and I assume it will continue to grow. — Status  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 21:14, 5 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, not counting those specifically about her recent SXSW performance and not counting many other track-by-track reviews for Artpop:


 * http://www.idolator.com/7490285/lady-gaga-swine-stream (review: "It’s a sonic onslaught of synth washes, a ground-churning bass line, jittery keyboards, hiccuping vocal samples and crescendos leading to drops in all the expected places. But amidst the EDM overload, Gaga manages to humanize things with one of her raspier, rawer vocal performances. And, for a dubstep song, it’s got a remarkably huge “Swiiine” refrain hidden in there.")
 * http://www.theweek.co.uk/music/54881/lady-gaga-sneak-peek-whos-new-track-swine-about
 * http://music-mix.ew.com/2013/08/30/lady-gaga-manicure-swine-comeback/
 * http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2405302/Lady-Gaga-previews-brand-new-track-Swine-goes-berserk-rehearsal.html
 * http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/5679850/lady-gaga-teases-new-song-swine-watch
 * http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rock-genius/10-reasons-why-lady-gagas_b_4271037.html "a powerful, albeit somewhat troubling, anthem for survivors of sexual abuse while continuing the chronicling of her battles with the Fame Monster"
 * http://www.alterthepress.com/2013/08/lady-gaga-teases-new-single-swine.html (just a teaser)
 * http://www.muumuse.com/2013/09/lady-gaga-itunes-festival-swinefest-artpop-haters.html/
 * http://consequenceofsound.net/2013/08/watch-lady-gaga-perform-new-artpop-song-swine/ (iTunes Festival)
 * http://www.newnownext.com/lady-gaga-debuts-sex-dreams-swine-at-itunes-festival-watch/09/2013/ (iTunes Festival)
 * http://www.digitalspy.com/music/thesound/a511912/lady-gaga-at-itunes-festival-track-by-track-review.html#~oAoOJbq2SoS1oe (iTunes Festival; "The evening reached the peak of bonkersness with 'Swine', where Gaga - sans wig - sang while her dancers wore pig masks and sprayed the crowd with paint. Fortunately, beneath the madness seemed to be quite a good song that we can only describe as an angst raveathon."
 * http://popcrush.com/lady-gaga-swine/
 * http://popdust.com/2013/10/11/lady-gagas-artpop-reviewed-swine/
 * http://www.spin.com/articles/lady-gaga-swine-stream-artpop/

-- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:RSN has repeatedly declared Daily Mail unreliable, and also determined that PopCrush has no evidence of credibility or viable credentials. Those two therefore are automatically discounted. Huffington Post and Muumuse are also automatically discounted as they are album reviews, even if not track-by-track. Idolator, Consequence of Sound, The Week, and Billboard just have medium-level coverage. Spin, Popdust, and Alter The Press! have brief (low-level) coverage. Digital Spy, Entertainment Weekly, and NewNowNext only discuss the song briefly, and are not even dedicated to that particular track. Sorry but those aren't enough to supply an article for the song. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I crossed out the two sources you said were unreliable per WP:RSN, but the others still count toward establishing notability, even if in small increments. They still contain blurbs that could be used in the expansion of this article. I am just including them here for future reference. The article has already been redirected. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * They mean nothing when there's no in-depth coverage (not counting Gaga herself speaking on the song, album reviews, performance reviews unless performance is just of song itself). You shouldn't have done the redirect before this discussion was closed, though. A discussion must last for a minimum of 168 hours (7 days) before action is taken and discussion is closed. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I still disagree about the content in the above sources, but I do apologize if I should not have redirected the article on my own. I have seen AfD discussions closed as the result of an article creator redirecting the article, so I thought that was appropriate. I've expanded the article just a bit, and there remains much more to be done. I assume not, but on the off chance any one is interested in helping to expand this article, rather than delete it, you are welcome to assist. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:58, 3 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)
 * To clarify, I would support keeping the article as well. If the discussion ended in a delete decision, I'd then say it should simply be turned into a redirect.  Gloss •  talk  01:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * In case my vote hadn't already been counted, Redirect to Artpop or Delete. A redirect is plausible, but it's definitely too soon for this to have its own article. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You just "voted" twice. — Status  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 03:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If that's so, my error. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep — Gaga's performance of the song at SXSW generated a lot of media controversy, surely there must be more than enough information to warrant its own article.  Gia co bbe  talk 23:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep — Gaga's performance of the song at SXSW generated a lot of media controversy, surely there must be more than enough information to warrant its own article. --190.122.44.6 (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * — 190.122.44.6 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. STATic message me!   20:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets WP:GNG to me, which is more important than WP:NSONGS. Last I heard, we didn't require tons of sources. Actually, more than three was enough to establish notability.  → Call me  Hahc  21  22:01, 6 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.