Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Watch Me Do

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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Watch Me Do[edit]

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

Delete or redirect to Meghan Trainor per WP:NSONGS. Song has never charted, has no sales stats, no certifications, no awards, no covers. Few sources and little to no media coverage available. Fails GNG, is WP:TOOSOON. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've been scolded and threatened for redirecting the article earlier on, in what later resulted in a condoning of WP:OWN, despite me just following the guidelines as I do with any other article. I guess that is why an official discussion has been opened. I support the reasoning given above (the guidelines are black and white), but I'm abstaining from voting officially. — Calvin999 21:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Meghan Trainor. Agree with the logic, songs, unless they are unusually notable, normally merge or redirect. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep for notability from having a promotional single release. I don't mean to offend anyone, but "Few sources and little to no media coverage available" just sounds like a kind-of bullcrap statement in my eyes, given that the song has been reviewed in a fair amount of independent sources following its promo single release. A little bit short, but not so much that its stub length. Its possible the article will expand as more opinions of the song in album reviews and chart positions of the track from digital downloads of the album will occur, but I'll only keep my vote a weak keep just so this statement isn't too WP:CRYSTALBALL-Y. editorEهեইдအ😎 00:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- But promo singles are generally ineligible to chart, because they aren't usually purchasable. That aside, it doesn't meet any of the other criteria, still. — Calvin999 10:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Based on the independent coverage of the song outside of album reviews by several reliable sources.--MaranoFan (talk) 05:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As per WP:NSONGS - which you clearly have not read - album reviews do not establish notability. — Calvin999 10:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - He's saying the opposite, though, there are no album reviews in the article, it hasn't been released yet. Pedro u | t 11:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - So it isn't notable. We can't crystal ball. — Calvin999 11:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - The song (the subject of the article) has been released, it isn't WP:CRYSTALBALL, and has been covered by independent sources which reviewed it upon its release as a promotional single. The only reason why I think I think it should redirect to Thank You (Meghan Trainor album) is because it is quite small and this information could easily be contained in the album article. Why not create a composition section in Thank You and describe the song there? Just a suggestion. Pedro u | t 11:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        It is crystal to imply that there will be reviews when the album is out. But still, song commentary in an album review does not establish notability, so it's a moot point. I was all in favour for redirecting. I did so originally. — Calvin999 11:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – this does meet WP:NSONGS since it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. The sources cited in the article are generally considered reliable for music articles, and they are neither reprints of press releases nor advertisements. Note that NSONGS states that songs meeting this guideline are only "probably" notable; most of the sources in the article are published over a short time frame. That said, I don't think WP:NOTNEWS applies here, since this article is not about an event, and I think the coverage this has received amount to a pass of WP:GNG, albeit weakly. Note that if this is determined to be non-notable, it should be merged and/or redirected to Thank You (Meghan Trainor album) instead of Meghan Trainor. I also don't think that Calvin999's edit-warring on this article is appropriate. WP:BLAR is appropriate if no one opposes, but when someone has reverted the redirecting, and concerns about notability still exist, AfD is the correct venue. SSTflyer 14:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – I have to agree with the above comments as the single has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. The sources cited in the article are reliable for music articles and establish its notability. However, I do understand the side saying that this should be deleted (primarily as this has not been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts), but I would say its notability comes from being a promotional single release with at least some independent coverage separate from album reviews. I agree that if this is found to be non-notable that this should be merged and/or redirected to Thank You (Meghan Trainor album) instead of Meghan Trainor as it makes more sense to be linked with the parent album as opposed to the artist. Aoba47 (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The single has "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." Therefore the article subject passes WP:GNG ans should be retained. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2016 (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.