Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Throw That Boy Pussy


 * 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) NorthAmerica1000 21:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Throw That Boy Pussy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Looks to fail WP:NSONGS, no charting and no significant coverage in reliable sources. STATic message me!   20:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, or at least Merge into List of Internet phenomena: This could easily be condensed into 2-3 sentences and added there, but then you'd lose a lot of the information that's encyclopedia-worthy here. I unfortunately can't check the sources due to the internet censorship here, but I know that at least the MTV one would be WP:RS.  Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex  19:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually after a view of the one reliable source (the MTV one), it does not mention this song at all. STATic message me!   20:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * STATic: Alright, in that case, I'm changing my !vote to Merge as previously mentioned because of this source and this one. If this is a good instance for the use of an op-ed from a major magazine, this source would also work. BTW, there's some veeeeery strange search results that even surpass the extents of Rule 34 mixed in when you look for sources.  Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex  01:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. The Ebony and BET sources are particularly strong. Those, plus all the gay coverage and the Huffington Post, push this one over the notability line for me. While it might or might not fail WP:NSONG, surely it passes WP:GNG? Anyways there's my 2¢. Perfect for you (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no BET source and Huffington Post is tabloidish in nature so it does not really add that much notability, but you are entitled to your opinion. STATic message me!   17:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I am mistaken:


 * http://www.bet.com/news/music/2014/04/10/young-fly-red-says-lil-wayne-did-not-sign-him.html
 * http://www.bet.com/news/music/2014/04/17/fly-young-red-i-m-not-ready-for-a-record-deal.html
 * http://www.bet.com/video/musicnews/2014/fly-young-red-i-do-this-for-gay-men-who-like-hip-hop.html
 * http://www.bet.com/video/musicnews/2014/fly-young-red-blasts-lil-wayne-rumors.html

Here is the Ebony magazine write-up: http://www.ebony.com/news-views/the-weekly-read-throw-that-boyoh-my-042 Perfect for you (talk) 00:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

After reading the Huffington Post source more thoroughly, the assertion that the piece is "tabloidish" is hard to swallow. The HuffPo piece is a conversation between:
 * Bryson Rose, a LGBTQIA youth activist
 * Darnell L. Moore, a writer and activist
 * Wade Davis, a formerly closeted athlete, currently a gay activist
 * Preston Mitchum, an LGBT policy analyst for Center for American Progress. To quote the CfAP website: "Preston has received a LL.M. in Law and Government from American University Washington College of Law. He also holds a J.D. from North Carolina Central University School of Law, and a B.A. in Political Science from Kent State University."

These are serious gay black voices, and that they got together to discuss whether this song is "revolutionary" is quite remarkable. Not lurid, not sensational, and certainly not "tabloidish". Perfect for you (talk) 01:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - WP:NSONGS appears to be a vague list of guidelines that helps establish credibility/notability for recordings belonging to more "traditional" artists. This poses an issue with the recent wave of independent, internet-based artists whose songs may not meet WP:NSONGS, but are nevertheless notable enough for their own pages. For instance, there is no denying the notability of Rebecca Black's infamous Friday, yet it doesn't appear to meet WP:NSONGS. Regardless, an earlier section on WP:Notability (music) establishes that the NSONGS section isn't the final authority on the notability of a single song. I believe the references, especially BET and Huffpo, provide plenty notability for this song to warrant an article. It also might be a good idea to, as per what I mentioned earlier, reevaluate the posted criteria for musical notability. felt  _   friend  02:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 05:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Seems to have gotten considerable coverage and sparked a decent amount of debate. Bali88 (talk) 06:09, 4 May 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.