Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We R One
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 delete. Notability not shown. If it becomes notable, contact me and I will be happy to userfy it so that it doesn't have to be re-written from scratch. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 18:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We R One[edit]
- We R One (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Prod removed by IP - This song fails WP:NSONGS - It has not been released, nor has it charted anywhere. The song itself is non notable and was only performed for the first time on 22nd November, due for release 23rd November. Article does not indicate full significance for this song to be included in Wikipedia. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 04:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - TBD charting? Give me a break. Come back when it places well. DARTH PANDAduel 05:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - newly-released song, fails WP:MUSIC#Songs as it has not been ranked on national or significant music charts, ...won significant awards or honors or ...been performed independently by several notable artists. JohnCD (talk) 08:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The song is most probably going to make the singles chart in the next week, so what is the point of deleting, and therefore reopening the article? IT already fulfil this part of the criteria "Notability aside, a separate article is only appropriate on a song when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Song writers, Lyricists, Producers etc. are found on this page, therefore, in my opinion making it more than a stub. Plus, if the {{future single}} tag is used, then it overrides the need to have charted already.Peterwill 22:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have removed the {{future single}} tag from this article, since it is, according to the dates you listed at the infobox, no longer a future single, since it was on general release as of 23rd November. This means that the requirement for the single to have charted is still in effect. I am now withdrawing from this AfD, since I have modified the article. My nomination of it, however, stands unaltered.' --Thor Malmjursson (talk) 02:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Therefore, if any single has the waiting to be released tag, and is then released, it can be deleted within the week it takes to chart? That defies the point of having the tag in the first place? It hasn't had a chance to chart yet, therefore, in my opinion, it is ligitimate to keep the article. If it does not chart this sunday, then obviously it warrants deletion. Peterwill 19:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have removed the {{future single}} tag from this article, since it is, according to the dates you listed at the infobox, no longer a future single, since it was on general release as of 23rd November. This means that the requirement for the single to have charted is still in effect. I am now withdrawing from this AfD, since I have modified the article. My nomination of it, however, stands unaltered.' --Thor Malmjursson (talk) 02:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. We shouldn't let Wikipedia process override common sense. If the guidelines say that it will meet the notability criteria if it charts this week, then it would be silly to delete the article only so that someone has to recreate it in a few days' time. Whether there is (or is likely to be) enough worthwhile material about this single to merit an individual article is another question, of course. Matt 20:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.26.150 (talk)
- Taking into account "Matt's" comment, I say delete. There isn't enough here--just the promise that it will chart by someone I don't know. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: notability not established, fails WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 01:45, 28 November 2008 (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.