Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuck Him He's a DJ (2nd nomination)

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 redirect to I Am the Dance Commander + I Command You to Dance: The Remix Album. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck Him He's a DJ

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previous AFD resulted in keep solely because of the fact that it charted. There does not appear to be any significant coverage of the song, and almost all of the info here right now is completely unsourced.

Despite how the last discussion was closed (inappropriately, in my opinion), WP:NSONGS does not always grant notability to a song just for charting: "The following factors [charting one of them] suggest that a song or single may (emphasis not mine) be notable"; "a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album."

For the record, the song's charting info is already present and sourced at Kesha discography. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note from nominator: All editors who discussed the last nomination have been notified of this discussion. –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge with "Blow"--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 21:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to album. I don't see any signs of notability besides the fact that it charted. Normally, that's enough for me to vote keep, but I agree with the nominator that there doesn't seem to be enough coverage for an article. If someone can demonstrate coverage, then I'll change to keep. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As I stated in the pervious discussion, although I am not a big fan of Kesha, the fact that the song charted indeed proves notability. Also, "WP:NSONGS does not always grant notability to a song just for charting"? It doesn't? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only sourced info in this article are the chart positions, which as detailed in the nomination, are already covered in another article. And read NSONGS again: "a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article." That is not the case. (A Google search for further info on this song only turns up lyric sites, MP3 downloads, and forum discussions.) Also, charting is one of "the following factors [that] suggest that a song or single may be notable, though a standalone article should still satisfy the aforementioned criteria." The "aforementioned criteria" includes "hav[ing] been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label," which is also not the case for this song. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that subjects don't have to pass every single guideline, don't you? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 09:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also getting the feeling that this might be closed as "no consensus" simply because if it the article were to be merged (for example), everyone seems to have a completely different idea where it would be redirected to. Is there a reason why you would rather have this deleted instead of merged if that's what it came down to? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 09:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is there to merge, exactly? Take a look at the article and see that besides the chart positions (already present at Kesha discography#Other charted songs), all of the content in this article is presently unsourced and I could not find any sources that back anything in the article. And no, subjects don't have to pass every single guideline, but this doesn't pass the vast majority of them. If the only thing it is notable for can (and has been) easily summarized in another article, what's the point in keeping this around? And as other users have !voted for, I would not be opposed to a redirect to I Am the Dance Commander + I Command You to Dance: The Remix Album, this song's parent album. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to I'm a Dance Commander. Except two chartings, there is no other third party notability. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 03:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to I Am the Dance Commander + I Command You to Dance: The Remix Album as a plausible search term though there is not enough coverage from reliable third-party sources to warrant an article. Chase is also quite correct on NSONGS. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 09:40, 29 June 2014 (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.