Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Edge of Glory

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. An hour short of the full seven days, but as this likely qualifies as a speedy keep (not to mention WP:SNOW), there's little point in waiting until the official deadline. Owen× ☎ 15:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Edge of Glory

[edit]
The Edge of Glory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article started against the advisement of other experienced editors; shows no material in toe with the music notability guideline. Portions of the article are also unsourced. This article was also created after consensus went against it at Born This Way (check out the history of this page and Born This Way). I Help, When I Can. [12] 16:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Song has coverage in multiple independent reliable sources and in 24 hours it will have heaps more coverage when it receives radio airplay. It was premature to create the article, but it is not premature to show that the subject is notable.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 17:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONGLY KEEP : This song is amazing, and keeping this page would help her little monsters see all the reception that this song gets. I'm sure that the song will get mostly positive reviews. Not to mention, it would help this song get more publicity, as well as, learn more about the background of this song (beats, the composition, the message...etc)
  • Keep: Lady Gaga has confirmed on her website that the song will be released tomorrow. Lady Gaga is a reliable source, and it will have more coverage once it is released. Mi.bryson (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)--Mi.bryson (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For the reasons given above: the deletion of this article is silly. Although it technically might fall under WP:CRYSTAL, there really is no point in deleting an article on a something which will have the fairly predictable popularity of a Lady Gaga single because it was created before the day before it is released. This is bordering on a bureaucratic, pointy and silly nomination. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm not sure if I have an opinion in this discussion, given that I'm an anon, but I want to give my two cents. Given that this song is a promotional single of Born This Way, that it has sources to back up the information, that it will be released tomorrow and that it will gain considerable attention... we should keep this article. Just like Gaga's Dance In The Dark or Monster. --201.240.246.133 (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: Deleting this article the day before the song is released as a single would be really foolish. The song is already getting a bit of attention -- an article the websites of both Billboard and Rolling Stone. This is already a notable song and it hasn't even been released yet. Come now. 60.230.153.168 (talk) 06:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a confirmed single, why is this discussion about deletion still active?? now that's a fail... calvin999 (talk) 11:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The single has been released, and is the subject of much media speculation as to the success of the new album "Born This Way". The single's release is the number one news item on MTV.com. I and others have come to Wikipedia specifically for information related to this song, and it looks bad for Wikipedia to have a page that is set to recieve so many page views be marked as potentially deleted' --jon1379 (talk) 10:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Everyone, please note that when it comes to music, existence is not a criteria to be included in this encyclopedia. Please review WP:NMUSIC. Even if it does eventually meet these guidelines, it doesn't now and predicting when it does is diving into WP:CRYSTAL. I Help, When I Can. [12] 22:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: From Wikipedia's own policies as delineated in NSONG - "Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings) are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." Being the First Headline Article on MTV.com constitutes significant independent coverage, at least in the United States --jon1379 (talk) 10:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Clearly it's been announced as a single. If the mere existence of a single does not make it notable, then you have a LOT of wikipedia pages to delete. Let it go! Keep the page, obviously it's going to chart on the Billboards!--mikomango (talk) 23:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Keep:There is no need to get rid of The Edge of Glory's page. We want to know more about the song. The album page probably wouldn't have as much info as the page---- SM64DSi {talk}
  • Strong Keep: More information will be released, increasing the notability of the article. DAP388 (talk) 01:33, 10 May 2011
  • Delete, per proposal. This is just going to be yet another Wiki exercise in democracy, because it's all about the tyranny of the majority here. (not withstanding those select few who boldly exercise their administrative abilities in spite of popular fancruft) 70.153.123.13 (talk) 04:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no good reason given to delete this article, as the subject is most clearly notable. The song is currently the top selling on iTunes, for example. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a PROMO single. It has a single cover. It has been released to iTunes as a promo single. Just keep it. Usher even has pages for Buzz singles. Why do people nominate things for deletion practically straight away without letting the article flourish first???? ffs just keep it!calvin999 (talk) 14:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Personally I am sick of these BS deletion discussions which waste everybody's time. "It hasn't charted, therefore it shouldn't have an article" is a load of codswallop. It is covered in reliable sources, is a single, and (it's OR, but it's still true) apparently it will chart in various places anyway. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also sick of this happening. This happened when I started the California King Bed article, it was deleted...and it was ultimately re-created about 2 weeks later, which makes no sense at all. Basically, someone who isn't a fan of the artist decides to preemptively remove a shitload of work that everyone else has done. The page will ultimately be reverted to what it was before this discussion. It's pathetic...and this is exactly why Wikipedia has a new editor retention problem. Because of users like the power-hungry egomaniacal nincompoop who proposed the deletion of this article. (Whoever you are, I'm not trying to hurt you, but I am entitled to my opinion). Ultimately, no one is removing the song pages of more obscure artists whose haters don't come out in droves to delete things as soon as they are typed.--mikomango (talk) 15:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please be reminded of Wikipedia's no personal attack policy mikomango. If you have a problem with the process, you aer welcome to put your points in the talk page of WP:AFD, but please don't come here to post unnecessary things. — Legolas (talk2me) 15:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please note that I did not personally attack anyone specifically. I merely stated my opinion, intended to support User:Adabow in his/her correct assessment that this process is total BS. If that's unnecessary, then perhaps you should blank out the entire thread. In the meantime, thank you, User:Legolas, for your continued dictatorial tendencies on English Wikipedia. Feel free to delete all I've offered since it's obviously your decision to make. Thanks and I'm done here.--mikomango (talk) 17:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Strong keep "The Edge of Glory" topped the iTunes sales charts in 11 countries in two days and it's an official single now, not just promotional.[1] -- Frous (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The Edge of Glory is confirmed as third single and looks likely to get number one in USA and UK in the next couple of weeks. It seems daft to delete an article of a notable song which is having a strong response and is providing new information than the album page. --Bbbnbbb (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong Keep - It's just a matter of time before this article is flourished with edits and more sources. Most if not all Gaga's single's have been hits, It would surprise me if this one wasn't. If it's topping charts, and already has this much 'keep' with valid reason's then It should definately stay. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 12:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - it's an official single that has topped in many charts around the world (see iTunes Top 10 in all the countries at this moment - http://www.apple.com/euro/itunes/charts/top10songs.html). --HC 5555 (talk) 16:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Come on, let us use a modicum of common sense- if it gets deleted the page will have to be recreated within an hour. The single has been reported on in scores of major newspapers and it's in the British midweek charts (as well as others I'm sure) - what else does a single have to do to warrant an article? - Tom (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: All of these votes saying, "It's an official single now," don't add up to much. It has to chart. Existence is a requirement (of course) but it is not a factor that calls for inclusion into this encyclopedia when it comes to music. I Help, When I Can. [12] 21:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you're saying that, after topping many iTunes charts over the world the song will not be featured in Billoard's Hot 100? The song is a commercial success, it was played each hour on KISS radio, and it will chart, even if it charts at place 100. So your plan is to delete it to later bring it back? Wake up.--190.43.48.38 (talk) 22:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The song has already charted in Finland. The nomination becomes moot now. — Legolas (talk2me) 05:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • And it has also charted in Ireland. And it will chart all over the world eventually. This discussion should be ended right now, it's useless to keep discussing on an official single by the greatest pop artist of the moment. And I'm not saying to keep it because of that, but because it has garnered enough attention and has already charted. End this now --Evengan (talk) 16:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: It has charted, though. And the page has been updated accordingly. Therefore, I don't see the need to even debate this now. It's an official single, it's charted, it has independent coverage from multiple sources and is being played in many countries. A bit of a pointy nomination in my opinion. (Paul237 (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep - Already an official release. Will chart in several countries in a matter of days. Has sufficient coverage.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 21:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Can we stop this discussion now? There's no reason to delete this article now. --Evengan (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (changed from redirect), clearly now notable, plenty of sources have been added since this AFD started and the single has charted (though I do believe it was right to AFD this at the time) –anemoneprojectors– 22:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawing Nomination → Yay! It finally charted!! It finally has a reason to be in this encyclopedia!!! I Help, When I Can. [12] 23:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You mad? --Evengan (talk) 23:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why would I be?? I Help, When I Can. [12] 23:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed some sarcasm. If not, then we're all okay. --Evengan (talk) 23:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it's sarcasm directed at some of the arguments in this discussion, but I'm not mad. I like the song. I Help, When I Can. [12] 23:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, some comments were wrong (for example the iTunes charts), but there's no reason to close the discussion with sarcasm which could be insulting to some editors. Just saying, not trying to judge you or start another discussion. We've had enough of that. --Evengan (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the few people who were against this article were citing the fact that it hadn't charted as being their main reason why they felt it didn't deserve its own page. Therefore, it's only natural for those of us who believe this entry is valid to confirm that the song has indeed charted. (Paul237 (talk) 06:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • It's time to close this discussion with the result of Keep, since the 'nomination' for deletion has been 'withdrawn'.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are a few other editors who indicated their preference of deletion or redirection, and they have not changed their view. Therefore, the fact that someone "withdraws" their nomination does not close a discussion. But the 7 days is up, so it will probably be closed by an uninvolved editor soon. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:36, 15 May 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Edge_of_Glory&oldid=1140261963"