Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All at Once
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 No consensus. Disputed notability combined with uncompelling cases all around. Cheers, WilyD 17:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All at Once[edit]
No proof that the song is a single - the only source proves speculation, which is hardly notable, and the {{prod}} would have deleted this article had an anyonymous ip not removed it, which, while techinically legal, was hardly orthodox given that the requirements listed in the prod (which were essentially that some proof be provided) were not sufficed. danielfolsom 03:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the source does not prove that it is a single. OysterGuitarst 21:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nothing to say it's a single. It's mainly speculation. Acalamari 03:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg 12:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The song is charting, indicating that it's getting nationwide airplay. For what it's worth (which is, I know, nothing), I've heard it on the radio. Chubbles 05:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, and I happen to have read WP:MUSIC - hearing it on the radio is not a reason to keep an article.--danielfolsom 15:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That was not my argument! If you would go and read the sentence that I wrote, that was an aside, noting a personal experience. Ugh, AfD gets my blood boiling. My official argument here is: Charted hits merit inclusion because they have been placed in rotation in a national market and because they have chart exposure. Yikes. Chubbles 16:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's not your argument then why bother mentioning it? I like pink elephants! But don't use that against me because my blood might "boil" because I care that much about an afd. Relax. Ok, then as to your other point - which thanks to your clarification I can assume was your argument - unless nothing was your argument in which case this is just getting confusing. But here we go - the article itself says it's a single - which no proof has been provided. I guess you could edit the article to remove the "single" stuff, but even then the fact that it's gaining ground on one chart is hardly notable - the article would still be deleted because it would fail the general notability guideline.--danielfolsom 17:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What might have tipped you off was the parenthetical comment (Which is, I know, nothing). Instead of bringing some levity to the debate, it just ends up being attacked as a straw man argument. In any case, under the proposed song notability guidelines, this charting hit merits inclusion. It's getting radio airplay and was recorded by a multiplatinum artist - why delete it? If you find some of the material in the article controversial, be bold and remove it. Chubbles 17:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A)Do I have to explain the difference between proposed and established - until the proposed is established we go by the aforementioned general notability guideline which this article does not suffice. B) For what it's worth, which I know, is nothing, I LOVE pink elephants - like seriously, what could be better - IDK!--danielfolsom 18:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- PS, internet connection acting up, so sorry if it takes me forever to respond18:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- A)Do I have to explain the difference between proposed and established - until the proposed is established we go by the aforementioned general notability guideline which this article does not suffice. B) For what it's worth, which I know, is nothing, I LOVE pink elephants - like seriously, what could be better - IDK!--danielfolsom 18:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What might have tipped you off was the parenthetical comment (Which is, I know, nothing). Instead of bringing some levity to the debate, it just ends up being attacked as a straw man argument. In any case, under the proposed song notability guidelines, this charting hit merits inclusion. It's getting radio airplay and was recorded by a multiplatinum artist - why delete it? If you find some of the material in the article controversial, be bold and remove it. Chubbles 17:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's not your argument then why bother mentioning it? I like pink elephants! But don't use that against me because my blood might "boil" because I care that much about an afd. Relax. Ok, then as to your other point - which thanks to your clarification I can assume was your argument - unless nothing was your argument in which case this is just getting confusing. But here we go - the article itself says it's a single - which no proof has been provided. I guess you could edit the article to remove the "single" stuff, but even then the fact that it's gaining ground on one chart is hardly notable - the article would still be deleted because it would fail the general notability guideline.--danielfolsom 17:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That was not my argument! If you would go and read the sentence that I wrote, that was an aside, noting a personal experience. Ugh, AfD gets my blood boiling. My official argument here is: Charted hits merit inclusion because they have been placed in rotation in a national market and because they have chart exposure. Yikes. Chubbles 16:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, and I happen to have read WP:MUSIC - hearing it on the radio is not a reason to keep an article.--danielfolsom 15:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Whether or not it's a single, it has charted in Billboard magazine. If having a song chart makes a band notable (and it does), then it's enough to make the song notable. Precious Roy 08:09, 9 July 2007 (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.