Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Treacherous (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.  MBisanz  talk 00:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Treacherous (song)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Should be deleted, with a redirection back to the parent album Red. Per WP:NSONGS, whilst charting does make a song a notable, notability aside there should be extensive coverage of the song as a primary subject. In this case there isnt, and chart positions could easily be added back to the album. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  17:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly meets WP:NSONGS having charted on a national chart. While I would grant that the "bubbling under" chart is not a significant one, the country chart and Canadian charts are. RadioFan (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment, the guideline says NOTABILITY ASIDE an independent article is only necessary where there is sufficient independent coverage. In this case there isn't. If you're going to vote against an AfD at least make sure you understand the reasons as to why something was nominated in the first place. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  23:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I exported the entire history of this article to http://taylorswift.wikia.com/wiki/Treacherous so if it does get deleted here, please feel free to continue editing it over there.  D r e a m Focus  22:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Merge to the album. --Michig (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 03:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. The song got enough coverage to have its own article, such as here, here and here. These are just some of the sources that I found away from the page. This article requires expansion, not deletion. Nominator should do their homework before making meaningless Afd's. Till  09:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Till this is the second time you've been verging on uncivil. Please keep the the comments strictly about the article and not the editor. This article was nominated because I researched and decided that Taylor Swift songs were being given articles because they charted but charting alone is not enough to warrant an independent article per our notability guidelines. Unless there is something unique like the song was used during a promotion or performed several times some comments from an album review or in passing from tabloid-y websites doesn't constitute significant coverage. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  22:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A song being performed doesn't make it notable. And how was that post uncivil? You probably didn't bother to look for sources and nominated this when it could have been easily merged. Till  00:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, he did say "verging on uncivil" (not saying I agree, just correcting). — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 01:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Assuming something negative id bad faith whihc is uncivil. It is my interpretation of the guidelines that if a song charts thats brilliant good for an artist but the coverage about a song should stem beyond mentions in an album review, or because the song premiered online several days before the album released. Like I said above it was used in promotion or performed several times etc. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  21:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Article obviously needs some work, but as Till presented above, there's some sources covering the song on its own. I would love to expand all of the Red song articles, but at the moment, I really don't have the time. So at best, a redirect would suffice. — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 01:16, 22 January 2013 (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.