Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tik Tik Boom


 * 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 (non-admin closure)  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 04:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Tik Tik Boom

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails the general notability guideline as it lacks "significant coverage", which is defined as "more than a passing mention". The vast majority of the sources used here are reviews of the song's parent album which only mention the song in passing. Additionally, WP:NSONG states, "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability."

The exception is Idolator, a gossip blog, used to support the claim that the song is based on a demo by another musical artist. (The source itself explicitly says, "It's just speculation, though! Nothing confirmed".) –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  19:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The funny thing is that WP:NSONG states, "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability", so why Rihanna articles "Fool in Love" and "Do Ya Thang" are here on Wikipedia and received good article nominations? Because if you look at them (which are articles about songs that were ONLY ON THE ALBUM'S DELUXE EDITION), you will see that they have only sources about the PARENT ALBUM (two reviews are from PopDust - not reliable - and The Fourth States), so why those articles are good enough since that they don't have at least one single source about the song itself and "Tik Tik Boom" can't receive the same treatment? It's not right! FanofPopMusic (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And the list keeps growing... "Farewell" has even less sources than "Tik Tik Boom" and it is considered a "good article", some users even redirected some songs for Christina Aguilera's "Bionic" (which were with a lot of reliable sources), because of the same claim, but then I see many articles with sources only from the album reviews and they are considered GOOD ENOUGH to receive a GA nomination. IT'S NOT FAIR AT ALL! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FanofPopMusic (talk • contribs) 21:26, 14 December 2014
 * Please calm down and review WP:ATA (particularly WAX). This isn't a discussion about any other article but this one. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's just a clear example that other articles here on Wikipedia don't have sources that users claimed "Tik Tik Boom" needs to have (this article is only with references about the album, but other articles here are intact, received GA and lack the same thing as "Tik Tik Boom") and now this article is considered to be deleted for reasons that are not applied to every non-single article? Oh please, let's be reasonable. It's the same thing, because we are talking about songs that are not singles and have the same sources (album reviews). I just wanna justice and that the same rules to apply to every single article here, if "Tik Tik Boom" lacks sources about the song itself, so does many "good articles" here, and it's clearly not fair ! FanofPopMusic (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect as a plausible search term to the parent album article. Minor chart placement and no independent third party notability. — Indian: BIO  [ ChitChat  ] 08:51, 16 December 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.