- 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 snow keep. There are 42 references in the current page. It is not a stub article and satisfies WP:NSONGS. (Non-administrator closure). © Tbhotch ™ ( en-2.5). 20:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Do What U Want ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NSONGS. Has had no significant coverage in many reliable sources, and has yet to chart or even be officially released for that matter. STATic message me! 16:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep It can be added to when more information is given — Preceding unsigned comment added by TDBiggestFan ( talk • contribs) 16:43, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep , or just redirect. Waste of time to delete articles that will just be recreated in the very near future. If there is not enough information at this time for an article, just redirect. -- Another Believer ( Talk) 18:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- The article creator reverted the redirect twice, so that is why it was taken to AfD. Not every Lady Gaga song deserves an article, and you gave no reason for keeping it.
STATic
message me!
19:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
-
Wikipedia:Snowball clause. Also, redirects do serve a purpose on Wikipedia. --
Another Believer (
Talk)
20:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- That does not really apply, I am all in favor for redirects, I make them all the time, but when one user wants to be disruptive and continuously revert the redirect, then it has to go to AfD. I am not going to edit war over a non notable song. STATic message me! 20:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
-
Wikipedia:Snowball clause. Also, redirects do serve a purpose on Wikipedia. --
Another Believer (
Talk)
20:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- The article creator reverted the redirect twice, so that is why it was taken to AfD. Not every Lady Gaga song deserves an article, and you gave no reason for keeping it.
STATic
message me!
19:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: Now that the song has been released, a simple Google search returns numerous articles about the subject. WP:GNG. My vote is still to let the article expand. -- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Song has been released and is blowing up in iTunes Stores, and is therefore notable (or will be in a few days' time). Adabow ( talk) 23:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep – Obviously seeing the commercial performance it is achieving, makes no sense to delete it when it will chart just two days later on Billboard. — Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - I think it's safe to say that this song is about to become notable enough to justify keeping this article, given that it now has significant coverage. I acknowledge that this was a good AfD when STATicVapor filed it and I acknowledge the work that Another Believer and IndianBio have put into the article to save it. Acalamari 17:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. This article may have been created too early (the initial redirect was perfectly fine; I'm talking about the subsequent expansion that merely duplicated content from the Artpop page), but turns out it was only by a couple of days. At this point, there is plenty of significant coverage to meet WP:NSONGS and warrant an independent article. Gong show 17:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - ( edit conflict) It's going to chart anyway. So there's no point in deleting it. — ₳aron 17:56, 22 October 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.
- 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 snow keep. There are 42 references in the current page. It is not a stub article and satisfies WP:NSONGS. (Non-administrator closure). © Tbhotch ™ ( en-2.5). 20:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Do What U Want ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NSONGS. Has had no significant coverage in many reliable sources, and has yet to chart or even be officially released for that matter. STATic message me! 16:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep It can be added to when more information is given — Preceding unsigned comment added by TDBiggestFan ( talk • contribs) 16:43, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep , or just redirect. Waste of time to delete articles that will just be recreated in the very near future. If there is not enough information at this time for an article, just redirect. -- Another Believer ( Talk) 18:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- The article creator reverted the redirect twice, so that is why it was taken to AfD. Not every Lady Gaga song deserves an article, and you gave no reason for keeping it.
STATic
message me!
19:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
-
Wikipedia:Snowball clause. Also, redirects do serve a purpose on Wikipedia. --
Another Believer (
Talk)
20:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- That does not really apply, I am all in favor for redirects, I make them all the time, but when one user wants to be disruptive and continuously revert the redirect, then it has to go to AfD. I am not going to edit war over a non notable song. STATic message me! 20:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
-
Wikipedia:Snowball clause. Also, redirects do serve a purpose on Wikipedia. --
Another Believer (
Talk)
20:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- The article creator reverted the redirect twice, so that is why it was taken to AfD. Not every Lady Gaga song deserves an article, and you gave no reason for keeping it.
STATic
message me!
19:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: Now that the song has been released, a simple Google search returns numerous articles about the subject. WP:GNG. My vote is still to let the article expand. -- Another Believer ( Talk) 17:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Song has been released and is blowing up in iTunes Stores, and is therefore notable (or will be in a few days' time). Adabow ( talk) 23:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep – Obviously seeing the commercial performance it is achieving, makes no sense to delete it when it will chart just two days later on Billboard. — Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - I think it's safe to say that this song is about to become notable enough to justify keeping this article, given that it now has significant coverage. I acknowledge that this was a good AfD when STATicVapor filed it and I acknowledge the work that Another Believer and IndianBio have put into the article to save it. Acalamari 17:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. This article may have been created too early (the initial redirect was perfectly fine; I'm talking about the subsequent expansion that merely duplicated content from the Artpop page), but turns out it was only by a couple of days. At this point, there is plenty of significant coverage to meet WP:NSONGS and warrant an independent article. Gong show 17:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - ( edit conflict) It's going to chart anyway. So there's no point in deleting it. — ₳aron 17:56, 22 October 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.