Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoü and I


 * 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   no consensus. Various arguments include "article meets WP:GNG" vs. "article does not meet GNG" vs "article does not meet WP:NSONGS". As far as merging is concerned, I do not feel that there is a rough consensus for that either here, but that can certainly continue to be pursued outside of AFD. As such, I do not think there is a consensus in any direction in this AFD. –MuZemike 15:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Yoü and I

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article has not charted in any major music market, has no lead or important background, recording or critical information. Can very easily be merged with Born This Way CallMe Nathan   &bull;  Talk2Me   07:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep This song is basically like Speechless, which also is in the "Other songs" category. It has had live performances and coverage and has sufficient information to warrant keeping this page. calvin999 (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No dear, "Speechless" charted on a number of charts for to pass WP:N. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 14:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In the sense that it is not a single but has had live performance and publicity, so yes.calvin999 (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Incubate The article is just a bunch of live performances, which is albeit a copy of material present in the parent album. There is a limit of the unnecessity and the uber fans creating everything and anything. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 14:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 *  Delete : Doesn't meet the normal criteria established by WP:NSONGS, and there is nothing exceptional enough to treat it as an exception case.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What would you say to "Incubate"? It seems to be the safest alternative.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   11:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GNG. This article still has expanding to do with the sources already listed, those on the talk page, and others. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete This does not even meet WP:GNG. Jivesh    &bull;  Talk2Me  15:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: Give it some time to flourish. --200.106.15.3 (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What? This is Wikipedia, not a music blog or gagapedia. I do not think it has enough information to remain. If you want it here, find more background, composition, critical reception, live performances, credits and personnel. Most importantly, organize the article's structure. Jivesh    &bull;  Talk2Me  15:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am working on this currently, though I will need to be away from the computer soon. I invite other contributors interested in fleshing out the article to assist in any way possible. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Hasn't charted. It isn't notable by any means. If it is released later as a single or something, we can write an article then. -- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 16:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep : I would say let's wait until this one goes on chart. I think it's a well-developed article and don't want to see it removed. Iantolee (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as nominator Incubate - Simply does not even come remotely close to passing Wiki: Songs.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   17:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Is your input needed here? We already know where you stand, since you nominated the article and all...  I Help, When I Can. [12] 22:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: Subject has had plenty of independent coverage. It passes WP:GNG so I don't see why it won't pass WP:NSONGS.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 18:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Doesn't pass WP:NSONG. - (CK)Lakeshade  -  talk2me  - 18:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:GNG. Here's what it comes down to for me: there is a good deal of information in the article sourced to reliable sources that should reasonably be presented in Wikipedia. If this article were deleted, then large portions of the material would get pushed back to the article on Born This Way. That article, then, would be left heavy on the coverage of this song. It makes more sense to keep the information parallel and out in a separate article for the song. —C.Fred (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. So to not "over-load" one article, you create an entire extra article for a small amount of content. In the long run, your creating extra articles, work, and bulk (not to mention breaking the agreed upon rules) instead of just adding a few more KB to Born this Way, which is still, even in Legolas' sandbox, quite small and comfortable.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   19:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with C.Fred. Certainly the information should not be deleted--even if consensus decides the article is not worth standing alone, a merge would be more appropriate. The article can be expanded further from the sources already used in addition to others that have not yet been added, and surely there will be more information to include (production details, reception, personnel, etc.) in less than two weeks once the album is released. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, your using Wiki: Crystal here, you have no way of knowing what will happen to the song. Secondly, the song has been performed several times and still has almost zero coverage. We are not going to bend the rule because editors feel that the song will soon chart. If anything, it should be put in an incubator, and hidden away until it (if it does) achieves any charting or more information.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   19:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My argument has never been that the song will chart. My argument is that the song has received enough coverage to warrant its own article (which will not be given the opportunity to reach its full potential if the article is deleted). -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Whether or not a song charted should not be a determining factor as to whether or not we have an article on it.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 01:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree on that point: using the notability test in WP:NSONGS plays an important role in not having millions of articles about album tracks. Nearly every album track will get mentioned in at least two reviews of the album, and people would want to use that as justification to create articles about every single one of them. What we have here is some trivial points about the song, and nothing that really even needs to be covered in the parent album article. The flip side of the problem is that people use charting as a pretext to create articles based on the argument "but WP:NSONGS says it's notable! It has to get an article!", but at least that's a bounded problem. Having articles on every album track in the universe is not.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete since it is currently not notable enough yet.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Give it a chance to be notable, even though it already is. So obvious that it will chart anyway calvin999 (talk) 23:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete it hasn't even been released yet. It is purely fan based and is not notable enough as of yet. --User:spiceitup08 —Preceding undated comment added 21:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC).


 * Keep: The song has been performed to a record crowd on Today, on Oprah, on an HBO special, at Elton John's Tiara Ball, dozens of times on tour, covered on American Idol, and will be played again on American Idol tomorrow. All of these performances have second party coverage and have been referenced in reliable sources. There are 24 valid references in the article, merging this with the Born This Way album article would either cause an abundance of information towards this particular song, or alot of information to be lost. The song is from a notable artist, with a notable producer and features a highly notable guitarist, and the article is still under significant expansion. The creation of this article may have been premature, but so would be it's deletion.


 * Or, to be really anal about this, the article could be placed in the incubator until it charts in a few days. Bruce Campbell (talk) 01:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: A standalone article on a song that hasn't been released yet DOES seem a little premature to me. Will it chart?  Almost certainly.  Will it deserve (i.e., have earned) undisputed notability moments afterwards?  Again, I feel a "yes" coming on.  And will it then deserve a full article?  Again, I think "yes."  But I am concerned about encouraging other editors to fill Wikipedia with articles about other songs by other artists which have not "yet" gone anywhere (has anyone noticed the proliferation of articles about Ukrainian footballers?  They each have their own article, and my proposal for deletion based on a single citation in a foreign language for any of them has been successfully disputed).  I am not swayed by the "give it a chance" argument-- that is what sandboxes are for, for incubation.  Articles should only be in Wikipedia when their topic has achieved the required public status, not in anticipation of that status.  But once that status has been achieved, then by all means.  Do not merge, there will be no point.  Hold off a couple of days/ weeks, out of respect for the process.  KDS 4444  Talk  03:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In most cases I would agree with you 100%, but in this case, the song has received a lot of coverage in RS, even before any single has been released, so that would seem to justify a stand alone article. Plus, unlike most song articles, which are no more than 2 or 3 lines long, this one is already fairly well fleshed out, so I see no reason to delete it. Robman94 (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep contains heavy metal ümlaüts \µ/ --MoonLichen (talk) 05:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What?-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   06:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (He's making a kind of clever joke regarding diacritic marks-- that's all.) KDS 4444  Talk  07:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge content to Born This Way. There are some decent sources here, but the article is rather short. I don't see why the information can't be covered in the parent article. Dimadick (talk) 07:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep the article doesn't need to pass WP:SONGS if it passes WP:GNG which, with all the refs in this article, it easily does. Robman94 (talk) 21:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Born This Way - song has not charted, or even been officially released. ℥nding · start 23:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge to Born This Way - the article should be rewritten as a short paragraph so that the available information is not lost, but I agree that there is too much detail on a yet to be released song. It's too soon for a full article. If there is any concerns about the sources and content being lost, then some of it could be kept on the Talk page for Born This Way so that it could then be used as source for a new article if needed. 189.216.23.144 (talk) 01:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge - with Born This Way. It may be a future single, or may chart via download sales during the album's release week, but I think at this point the live performances of this song are simply for early promotion of the album.  There really isn't anything that asserts notability here. - eo (talk) 11:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - As a user had said, keep it...and it will flourish. The article has enough reliable sources; It is only a couple months old; and the article is currently in the middle of an expansion or under major restructuring. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 12:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You are simply asking others to bend the rules of WIki: SONGS because its Gaga. We have rules to keep, not to break them. You have no idea if it will fourish. Honestly, Gaga's popularity is in severe decline, so I doubt the song will chart. As another editor said, place it in an incubator and if it does flourish, we can add it back.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   18:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not about Gaga's popularity (or supposed decline). My frustration with this particular AfD is growing. The song has received enough press coverage to warrant its own article, AND the article is guaranteed to expand further in about 10 days as the album will be released then. Surely the reception and personnel sections will grow, additional details about the song will be released, etc. I understand that notability requirements are necessary and crystal balling is discouraged, but sometimes articles should be allowed to grow. There are more Delete votes here than Keep votes (Edit: Actually, I believe there are an equal number of Delete and Keep votes, but three additional Merge votes), but I hope admins see that there are enough Keep votes to let the article alone. It does not contain redundant information presented in the Born This Way article and will be growing as additional information about the song is collected. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, a few keeps are IPs, so in reality there are more deletes, not including the merges. Look, we have time, the nom is only like 2 days old, let us wait for a clear consensus. Again, this is Crytal. I appreciate your feelings and assumptions, but as of now this should be in an incubator. I mean, take the article I promote. While I do the singles, and read biographies, there is enough info to create articles for most songs, whether popular or not. That is why I recently requested for people to think about it more, and have a higher bar set for songs.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   20:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nathan, why are you lobbying so hard to get this article deleted (or merged)? It's my understanding that a song article needs to pass *either* WP:GNG *or* WP:SONG and in this case, there are plenty of RS articles about the actual song so it easily passes WP:GNG, so why isn't that enough for the article to stay?  Plus, from a purely common sense POV, once the single is released it will undoubtedly pass WP:SONG also.  On the other hand, if the article is deleted, when the single is release, someone will have to file a request to have it undeleted, which is just making work for people.  Robman94 (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm lobbying for its removal because I don't think it passes Wiki: SONGS at the moment. That is all. Following CRYSTAL, we can only go by its present state. Apparently, more than half of the editors here agree with me, so its not like my views are alone. I clearly said if it were put in an incubator until its release and possible charting that would suffice.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   22:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you think it passes WP:GNG? And if not, why not?  My impression is that rules like SONGS and BAND were added as a way that articles could remain that don't pass GNG.  In other words, you could (in theory) have a hit single that sold millions of copies, but nobody wrote about it, so it would fail GNG, therefore something else was needed to keep it around, hence SONGS was created.  But I don't believe that it's supposed to work in reverse to kill articles that do pass GNG.  Your thoughts? Robman94 (talk) 01:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete (and merge content to Born This Way), this is a classic case of creation before achievement. People have created the article because they think the song will become notable. Several live performances alone are NOT criteria for notability. Per WP:NSONGS it clearly states thats songs are only notable upon charting and/or receiving independent coverage. They only receive an indepedent article if there is enough verifiable info for a reasonably detailed article. It is the latter stipulation (about reasonably detailed article) which is covered by WP:GNG however the crux and creation of the article itself is covered by WP:NSONGS. I'm fed up of reading discussions where people have misunderstood the two policies and seem to believe that the notability of an artist or of a particular peformance of the song makes the song itself notable. This is simply not a case. An article of this size, with its considerable lack of detail is simply not required. Remember articles are creater after notability has been established not in ancitipation of notability. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  02:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Question This is a question for all the people who say that this song fails WP:NSONGS, could you please explain WHY you think it fails the policy. Some people have said that we should wait until the song has been released as a single.  I assume those folks are talking about Lady Gaga releasing it because it has already been released as a single by Haley Reinhart .  Even if we treat the song as unreleased, the policy states "Unreleased material... are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources."  This song has been covered in articles in Billboard, Los Angeles Times , New York Post , Entertainment Weekly , USA Today  and 6 MTV articles.  (And those are just the articles that are specifically about the song, I didn't include ones that just mention it).  The policy goes on to state: "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article".  The current article on this song is approximately 660 words long.  So, if that's not a long enough article and that's not enough RS refs, could someone please state how long an article needs to be and just how many articles need to be written about a song, because the WP:NSONGS policy page fails to address that. So, bottom line, I am stating that I believe this *does* pass WP:NSONGS and I've laid out my reasoning.  If you believe that it does not pass WP:NSONGS, then I don't think it's sufficient to simply say so, I think you need to say WHY you think it doesn't pass.  Robman94 (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, it passes now, having been released as a cover by a notable artist (to the extent that American Idol contestants are actually notable). You are reading the clause incorrectly: "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" says "An article may pass all tests for notability, but still not get an article there isn't enough material", not "An article may fail notability tests but still get an article because it can be big. WP:NSONGS is one of a handful of specific notability guidelines that reads as an exclusionary filter, not an inclusionary one.&mdash;Kww(talk) 11:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we're saying the same thing. In other words, for this particular song, it passes the notability test AND there's enough info to write a 660 word article.  I see that you struck out your 'delete' !vote above but you didn't replace it with a new !vote, what is your opinion now on whether the article should stay or go? Robman94 (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I no longer care much, but no, we don't agree. At the time I placed my !vote, it did not pass WP:NSONGS. A 660 word article is not much more than a stub, and doesn't warrant an article, but it's cleared the bright-line tests and there was some material. Until it was covered, it was a clear "delete", and now it's sufficiently borderline that I'm not going to argue either way. You were still reading the guideline backwards though: you have to pass the test of (charted, covered, or received an award) and have enough material to create a substantial article. Only in very exceptional cases should there be an article about a song that didn't chart, receive an award, or get covered by multiple artists, even if you could build a 3000 paragraph article detailing the outfits the artist wore during every live appearance that she performed it.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Incubate It seems like a complete waste to delete this article when it is almost inevitable that it is to chart once the album comes out. -- ĈÞЯİŒ  1ооо  21:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Incubate: Are we going to waste this information? What if, after the release of the album, this song charts and becomes notable? Don't keep it, nor delete it: the best solution is to incubate. --Evengan (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree, it would be a complete waste of peoples time and energy to delete this article. It's so obvious the song will chart around the world once the album is released. Just keep it as it is and keep it under "Other Songs". This song/article is exactly the same as Speechless, except Speechless has charted. They have both had media coverage, critical reception and Live performances. calvin999 (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So why not Incubate? its kind of like a compromise.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   07:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agreed with that. Incubating is in a sense Keeping. Who put a strikeout through my "keep"? calvin999 (talk) 17:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Incubate or Merge (I really have no preference) A majority of you who are suggesting that the article be kept really need to review CRYSTAL. The song fails notability, at the present time, plain and simple. Striker force Talk  Review me! 09:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Give it a chance to become notable. People are too quick to just remove articles. It it was closed tomorrow, I guarantee that it would have to re-created or re-open within the next few weeks. calvin999 (talk) 11:28, 17 May 2011 (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.