Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinosaur (Kesha song)
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. Rlendog (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dinosaur (Kesha song)[edit]
- Dinosaur (Kesha song) (edit | 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, WP:DUPLICATE. Although this article is somewhat lengthy, and sources are included, everything in it (including the source links) is copied directly from either the main Kesha article and/or Kesha's Animal album article. The only "new" information provided in this article is the item about it being covered in an episode of Glee, which does not warrant it notable enough for its own page. The Glee item can easily be inserted into the main Animal article. Suggest deletion or merge. - eo (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*Speedy delete agree with nom - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 18:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - After expanding it it now meets requirements. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm pretty sure "Dinosaur" met the requirements when I expanded it. Thanks. Till I Go Home (talk)
- Keep we have plenty of articles that are about a track from an album. The song notable for charting on the UK Singles Chart and there is also capacity for expansion. Just give the article's creator some time to expand and write it. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Till I Go Home (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid reason to keep an article. WP:NSONG is clear: "Notability aside (meaning charting), a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article." None of the above is a valid reason for a keep. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 15:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Uhhh did you not read my argument? I said the song is notable for charting and there is coverage in reliable sources in the links above. Just because there is not much information in the article currently, doesn't mean it can't be expanded to satisfy WP:GNG. Till I Go Home (talk) 23:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Uhhhh did you not read WP:NSONG? GNG is an overview of notability, NSONG is the precedent that deals in depth with articles related to songs (GNG = overview; NSONG = specific requirements). To reiterate, as you obviously didn't read my response, "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts [...] are probably notable", NSONG goes on to state: "Notability aside (meaning even tho the song has charted), a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article." Therefore your "argument" is moot and based on opinion, not rules, and this article will be deleted. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 01:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. The links above prove that coverage indeed exists for the song, meaning there is a valid argument and not based on opinion. Plus even if "Dinosaur" was to be expanded, that would warrant a fairly detailed article AND pass GNG. One notability guideline should not outweigh the other. Till I Go Home (talk) 04:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether you disagree or not is irrelevant; we argue based on rules, not your interpretations and what you deem acceptable - this is an encyclopedia, we have rules and regulations for a reason. Further, you are basing your entire argument off of a WP:CHRYSTAL violation; being that you think this article might grow a few sentences (still a stub, still not allowed a page). If all you can do is argue based on what you want - which is the direct opposite of what Wikipedia is - I'm done with this discussion. Further, 6 references is not significant coverage; prose determines coverage. If you want the article kept, you expand it significantly yourself, don't expect someone else to. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 05:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "...we argue based on rules" -> WP:SONG isn't a rule it's a guideline. Also 6 references may not be 'significant' coverage but it definitely shows that there IS coverage, and not once did I say that I "think" the article "might grow a few sentences". I will begin writing the article. Kthanksbye. Till I Go Home (talk) 07:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether you disagree or not is irrelevant; we argue based on rules, not your interpretations and what you deem acceptable - this is an encyclopedia, we have rules and regulations for a reason. Further, you are basing your entire argument off of a WP:CHRYSTAL violation; being that you think this article might grow a few sentences (still a stub, still not allowed a page). If all you can do is argue based on what you want - which is the direct opposite of what Wikipedia is - I'm done with this discussion. Further, 6 references is not significant coverage; prose determines coverage. If you want the article kept, you expand it significantly yourself, don't expect someone else to. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 05:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. The links above prove that coverage indeed exists for the song, meaning there is a valid argument and not based on opinion. Plus even if "Dinosaur" was to be expanded, that would warrant a fairly detailed article AND pass GNG. One notability guideline should not outweigh the other. Till I Go Home (talk) 04:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Uhhhh did you not read WP:NSONG? GNG is an overview of notability, NSONG is the precedent that deals in depth with articles related to songs (GNG = overview; NSONG = specific requirements). To reiterate, as you obviously didn't read my response, "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts [...] are probably notable", NSONG goes on to state: "Notability aside (meaning even tho the song has charted), a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article." Therefore your "argument" is moot and based on opinion, not rules, and this article will be deleted. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 01:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Uhhh did you not read my argument? I said the song is notable for charting and there is coverage in reliable sources in the links above. Just because there is not much information in the article currently, doesn't mean it can't be expanded to satisfy WP:GNG. Till I Go Home (talk) 23:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid reason to keep an article. WP:NSONG is clear: "Notability aside (meaning charting), a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article." None of the above is a valid reason for a keep. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 15:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Charted and has enough info. Passes notability. Aaron • You Da One 13:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - issues noted have been resolved since nomination. The Kesha page doesn't even mention this single at all and the Animal one contains only a couple of development mentions. Nikthestoned 16:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.