Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whatcha Think About That




 * 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. Oran e  (talk)  21:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This music single is not notable, under the Wikipedia notability criteria for songs under Notability_(music). It hasn't won any awards and hasn't charted in any notable manner. I nominate it for deletion, the information contained can go into the article for the album, Doll Domination. As the prod was refuted, I'm nominating it for deletion, because I suspect a re-direct or merge would just get reverted. Delete--Raven1977 (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this is an official single and currently charting. There are other articles with three or four sentences. They have not been deleted. Charmed36 (talk) 23:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It is completely unfair to this article and OFFICIAL SINGLE WHICH IS CURRENTLY CHARTING and has a music video. Charmed36 (talk) 23:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment It may be new, but in my opinion it still doesn't criteria for notability right now. The article can always be re-created if the subject later becomes notable. raven1977 (talk) 00:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The song is notable. It should stay. Charmed36 (talk) 00:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Complete lack of grounds for deletion. The single has been officially released as the second single, the video has been shot and is pending release, the song has charted on itunes and on a couple Billboard component charts and soon will be released in other formats. Misinterpretation of deletion policy perhaps? Apparently you missed the part of the Notability guideline that states "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album". In other words, the song, being an independent single that is currently being promoted, will have a wealth of information in a matter of days/weeks, and will definitely grow beyond a stub. Oran e   (talk)  02:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Am I misinterpreting the criteria for notability under songs? I read the criteria about charting to mean "has charted in some spectacular way", and I don't see that in the article for this song. If I'm wrong, and it means simply "has charted", then yes I misunderstood that criteria. As for the song not being a stub, I concur. But just because it's not a stub doesn't mean it's notable.
 * Also, in regards to my not giving the subject time to become notable, is it really the policy to immediately grant every new subject assumption of notability, because it might eventually reach that criteria? This seems like an unfeasible interpretation, leading to a glut of articles that were created under assumption of notability, but never reached that standard, but are here anyway for people to nominate for deletion later as they find them. In my opinion it's far better to wait until an article subject becomes notable, rather than to just create new articles on subjects as they occur because they may someday be notable. And that's what I believe should be done with this article. raven1977 (talk) 17:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles aren't necessarily created after the fact, hence the high number of templates announcing that certain subjects are current, or expected, and information may change in the future i.e futuresingle or futurealbum. If a song released by a prominent artist is currently charting, then yes, an article should be created for it, and then expanded and updated as the song becomes more successful, and more information is available. To chart spectacularly is a highly subjective term, and doesn't necessarily mean that the song has to hit number one or even the top ten. Heck, there are many singles from artists like Mariah Carey, Celine Dion, or Michael Jackson that failed to chart and have articles of their own. Should these be deleted too?
 * I point out this significant excerpt:
 * Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article is only appropriate on a song when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article.
 * As is, the article satisfied the criteria. Do you honestly see it practical to place all the information on the single into the article for the album? Oran e   (talk)  03:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems notable enough as is. I see a couple good sources. Also, it's a currently charting single, so I would give it the benefit of the doubt. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 12:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Makes absolutely NO SENSE! It is an official single from off the album. Who would even think of such a thing. Let it stay and DO NOT DELETE IT. Hometown Kid (talk) 1:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. A charting single, recorded by notable artists. Meets WP:NM. Europe22 (talk) 22:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Do not delete, it is perfectly valid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.54.146 (talk) 01:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep! do not delete because it is a perfectly fine page, why should this page be deleted whilst theres much worse pages, Coment by ChillaxNOW (talk) 06:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC).

The article should not be deleted as it is an official single, the video already released and expected to chart. The page would look better as time goes by as there will be loads of updates about it, for example a nomination in a certain award. --HalfCrazy (talk) 12:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep This petition is useless and nonsense --SuperHotWiki (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep It is an offical single, due to be released!! -Liamr02 (talk) 22:45, 7 october 2008 (GMT)


 * 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.