Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dance in the Dark

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Furthermore, it's been snowing here since day 1. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dance in the Dark[edit]

Dance in the Dark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is unnecessary, it is just an aticle created by some gaga's fans that think that wikipedia is a lady gaga encyclopedia. This article is about an irrelevant song, that for no reason, got an article. The whole article is about the not-even single song, and most of its contents are about composition (irrelevant), live performances (already described on her tour article) and "reviews" of the songs that in fact are reviews of her album (most of the "reviews" are one line long, and in the original reviews the song is not even a highlight). It even has a media file, like if the song was really important, and a "cover" that is a picture of the booklet. The whole article is trivia, like the live performances. All the information could be easily mentioned on her tour article or on its album article. This has to be deleted, redirected or merged with any other relevant article. BTW, like with a lot of gaga-related articles, her fans are trying to create irreleant articles, just take a look on speechless, or the indepent article that they wanted for the music video of telephone; Wikipedia is not a fansite, I bet you can have thousand of gaga's articles on a wikia or something like that, but not on a "NEUTRAL" and not "PROMOTIONAL" Wikipedia. Fortunato luigi (talk) 06:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not currently a good article. It is trying to become a good article, but the references are a problem. However, still no reason to delete even if it does not become a GA. Xtzou (Talk) 21:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, leaning more towards redirect – has demonstrated notability per both WP:NSONGS and the WP:GNG. However, I don't see how the information here can't be contained in the The Fame Monster, The Monster Ball Tour, and Lady Gaga discography articles. –Chase (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is lengthy enough to have a space in Wikipieda. Plus, the song charted on two reliable charts. Also, I don't know what you are talking about because it's not fancruft. Everything is relevant and how is the composition of the song irrelevant? All Lady Gaga articles are very well written and I definitely think you shouldn't rag on works that are GA. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 22:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to my last edit, the image is of it as a digital download in foreign iTunes Stores and reviews do not have to single handedly focus on the song and only the song. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 22:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. The nomination statement is fundamentally flawed. 1) As a charting song with significant coverage from secondary reliable sources, this song isn't anything near irrelevant. 2) A song does not have to be a single in order to merit in article, as this article clearly demonstrates. 3) The song's composition is a core aspect of articles about songs need. In fact, it wouldn't pass a good article nomination without it. 4) The article does not read non-neutral or promotional, as suggested by the nominator; even if it did, copy-editing would be the route to take, not nominating the entire article for deletion. This article meets and surpasses the requirements noted in the notability guideline for songs and should not be deleted or merged. — ξxplicit 00:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not currently a GA. I don't know why everyone seems to think it is. Xtzou (Talk) 22:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The reasons have been sufficiently explained. --uKER (talk) 05:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Same arguments as above. -- doorautomatica (talk) 06:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per above; inane nomination. Katerenka (talk) 03:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As above, notable article with no violation of WP:NSONGS, stupid nomination. - ηyχαμς 11:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the song is not notable, the album is notable and her tour is notable, and this article has nothing except pieces of review of her album and synopsys of her tours, this is not an important article. Fortunato luigi (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...didn't you already say this in your nomination? There's no need to repeat this. Anyhow, there are charts and significant coverage which grant it notability per WP:NSONGS. Just because you don't like the artist or the song does not mean it is "not important"; you are not the judge of that, Wikipedia's guidelines are, and according to them this song is important enough. While I'm shaky on whether it should have a separate article, pushing something for deletion by calling it "irrelevant" is just absurd. –Chase (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I won't give a bolded "keep" because I'm not going to waste my time reading the article or looking for sources, but I would point out that the nomination, wordy as it is, doesn't give any policy- or guideline-compliant reason for deletion. The guesswork about the identity of the authors and the subjective opinion of this being a piece of trivia are not reasons for deletion, and the real giveaway that this is a tendentious nomination is the repeated use of the word "irrelevant", which is a meaningless word without it being specified what the subject is irrelevant to. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, is a good article, it need not be here. --Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, it is not a good article in the sense of a GA. Xtzou (Talk) 22:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't you who keep with the annoying "it's not a GA" right above? Sparks Fly 23:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, now starting to be biased in the review. I don't know whether the nomination is biasing his points. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Speedy Keep - Absolutely nothing wrong, no idea why there is even a discussion. Candyo32 (talk) 03:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any reason for the article to be deleted, haters of any kind of artists have no policy to decide if the artist's article is "important" or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.199.190.124 (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - There's no need for it to be deleted. I think the article's very complete and well argumented and sourced. If Speechless (Lady Gaga song) has an article, why not Dance in the Dark?. I think that the later of both is even more important because it's thought to be a single by Gaga's label, and in fact it was an iTunes promo single. And, for your information, the "cover" is the official cover taken from the iTunes promo single. I think that you arguments are sometimes immature and teen-like, when you use sentences like: "like if the song was really important", "it is just an aticle created by some gaga's fans that think that wikipedia is a lady gaga encyclopedia". This kind of sentences sound like you're a very angry teenager... Don't take it personal... Just, take it easier and get less stressed. It's a constructive advice. --87.218.192.187 (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; well-sourced and established as a significant song. Tezero (talk) 21:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep* It is clearly a notable song because it has gained a lot of media attention as well as being sung live at a very well know event. it is exactly the same as Speechless in this regard. It's likely to be a single too even though Alejandro was chosen instead, because even though Gaga has said she has written half of her 3rd album, she is still on tour until 2011, so the Fame Monster ear is by no means over yet, a good 6/7 months, which is enough time to released it as a single and promote it further. calvin999 23:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvin999 (talk • contribs)
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dance_in_the_Dark&oldid=1137761078"