Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teeth (song)

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. Also unprotecting. I'm going to give Another Believer a chance to continue working on the page. I don't consider this AfD entirely valid, since the article was fully protected for most of it, stopping any reliable sources being added to establish notability. There's no urgent need for the article to be merged or deleted, as evidenced by the low levels of participation here, so we can afford to wait a couple weeks and see how the article develops. If we're still not satisfied that notability has been established, it's easy enough to re-nominate. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Teeth (song)

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

Completely fails WP:NSONGS. There is no ounce of notability, nothing to indicate that independent third party reviewers critiqued the song. Passable mentions in album reviews and once used in a Discovery channel programme. Gaga has once performed this song, and coupled with that it did not have any chart action at all except an obscure placement in UK, makes it the least passable NSONGS article to be ever created. There is a reason why this was always redirected from the history. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 20:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Gosh, I am disappointed by the resistance I've faced here, not to mention the language used by experienced editors on talk pages and in their edit summaries while I was actively working on this article. I am not going to vote to keep or delete this article yet, because I am currently finding sources to determine whether or not this song meets notability criteria. Right now, my hunch is that enough information could be found to justify an article, but I am not certain. We had a similar discussion over "Sexxx Dreams". Even WikiProject Lady Gaga participants were resistant, but the article has since been promoted to Good status. Let us all please remain calm and treat one another kindly as we evaluate this topic's notability, please. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IB, why do you say Gaga only performed the song once? I can find multiple concert reviews discussing her performances. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How does it indicate the song's notability? The reviews discuss the Monster Ball Tour, not "Teeth" the song. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 20:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say her performing the song more than once indicated notability. I just asked why you said she only performed the song once. I was not sure where that was coming from, especially since the song was part of the setlist for The Monster Ball Tour. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Fame Monster doesn't get more than brief mentions outside of album reviews from any reliable sources except for one Music Times link. "The Blaze" is questionable and only provides brief commentary anyway, and Gigwise is not a reliable source. Not enough for a separate article. Can be briefly summarized in parent album article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding here, so are Sputnikmusic: written by an User as well as AXS: a ticekt merchandise. ~~God knows how the creator can even consider them to be reliable~~. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 20:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Again, please stop with the insulting language. Usually one can make a better argument when it doesn't involve name calling and snide remarks. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the The Fame Monster. The nomination is OTT but I think the key facts here can be summarised in the article on the album. --Michig (talk) 08:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think this AfD was premature and I wish I had been given more of an opportunity to expand the article. I was in the process of doing so, which I made very clear, yet the article was AfD'd and now it is protected so that I cannot continue to work on its expansion. Perhaps this song could have enough press coverage to justify a stand-alone article, but with this much difficulty exploring the possibility, perhaps I should just move on to other projects. I don't contribute to Wikipedia to be insulted and prevented from try to make constructive edits. Quite disappointing, to be honest. I've posted a few more links on the talk page, which could be incorporated into the article if it is kept. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:11, 9 November 2015 (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.