Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Life Would Suck Without You

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 January 20.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 07:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Life Would Suck Without You[edit]

Fails WP:NSONGS. Hasn't charted, hasn't won any awards, and hasn't been covered by multiple artists. From an unreleased and as-of-yet untitled album, so I originally redirect to artist. Editors have been edit-warring the redirect, so deletion seems to be the appropriate answer. —Kww(talk) 00:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I haven't been involved in the edit warring, and the User:Lzki account that has been making crude personal attacks on User:Kww is an obvious sock and should be blocked. But all that said, deleting or renaming this article is taking the songs notability criteria too far. First singles released in advance of an album by a major artist often get articles early and before they chart; the "future single" template was obviously created for this case, and is in use in a bunch of cases. This Clarkson single has already received mainstream press attention. In all likelihood, it will chart, and deleting it now only to recreate it later is just pointless churn. If for some reason the single and song turn out to be completely unnotable, it can always be brought to AfD at that time. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rolling Stone, a reliable source, confirms the release date for the single and contains a review of the song. (Side note: I would have brought it here after ~~the first reversion of the redirect~~ Lzki's reversion since WIKI-GUY-16 is the creator of the article, instead of edit warring, since the redirect could have been seen as a prod and the subsequent reversion as contesting the prod.) Aspects (talk) 02:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What part of the Rolling Stone article is a review of the song? That article looks to me like a review of unnamed songs from the album.—Kww(talk) 03:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it's very probable that the first single would have been one of those previewed for media outlets. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't build articles around things being "very probable."—Kww(talk) 03:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kelly Clarkson#Kelly Clarkson's fourth studio album. WP:MUSIC#Songs is crystal clear about this: "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable."
This song hasn't charted, has won no awards, and hasn't been covered, so none of the indications apply. Furthermore, there is quite certainly no significant coverage of the song to be found anywhere. The only thing that we have is a release date, the names of the producers, and a two-word critique of the album that is being misapplied to the song. To say it with WP:MUSIC#Songs, "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article."
This in no way warrants an article at this point, all the verifiable material can easily be incorporated into the artist's article (and most of it already is).
That being said: the future single template is for future singles that are notable, the existance of it can of course not imply notability for all future singles, Lzki is an obvious sock, and it should have been brought here once WIKI-GUY undid the redirect for the second time. --Amalthea 02:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Under your strict definition, how could any use of the future single template ever be justified? Shouldn't the template be deleted? Wasted Time R (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly think it should be. I've been redirecting unreleased singles for a long time, and have rarely had to bring the things to AFD. Every time I have had to bring one to AFD, it's been deleted solely on the basis of being unreleased. I noticed during this little spat that Moonriddengirl added futures singles on Oct 6, 2008, with no previous discussion or real justification. Discussion at a discussion of this exact question shows other editors coming to the conclusion that was always in place before that date, with Moonriddengirl seemingly being the only objector. Since future singles can never have articles created about them, there should be no {{future single}} template.—Kww(talk) 03:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should be done. The existence of the template will definitely mislead editors into thinking articles about future singles will survive. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Circus" (song) for example certainly had significant coverage in multiple RS prior to release, and enough verifiable material to build an article, so e.g. this use seems OK to me. --Amalthea 05:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at that article's history, you let it live as of this 1 November 2008 version before it was released, before it had charted, before it won any awards, and before anyone else recorded it. So you are establishing a new, addition class of notability that isn't in WP:NSONGS, right? Before you said NSONGS was "crystal clear", now it seems not so much. Note I agree with your decision on "Circus", as it showed common sense, which is what I think needs to be applied here too. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I don't remember what I was thinking back then, but it was certainly the sane choice considering the amount of edits Circus (Britney Spears album) was getting at the time. Per the letter of our guidelines it should have been developed in the album article.
There was more information available about the song at the time than we have for "My Life Would Suck Without You", but it didn't have the coverage to get it past WP:NOTE. --Amalthea 06:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future single tempalte is used on alot of pages about artists who have a single coming up that has been confirmed by the label, artist, or management. I rarely see it used on a page about the song itself. That's a jsutified use of the template. 76.109.42.17 (talk) 07:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it can be created once it actually is a released single and gets on the charts. Assuming it will be before it happens falls under crystal ball. The article itself has a fake album cover art that a FAN created on a fan message board, there is no information officially released other than a drop date for the single, meaning, not enough to make a page with yet anyway. 76.109.42.17 (talk) 07:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The song is confirmed as the lead single, so it is already notable. It will start having an impact very shortly, so what's the point of deleting or redirecting the page when we all know it's just going to be re-created very soon? There's nothing on the page that falls under wiki's crystal ball rules, there are no un sourced facts or predictions. So I say keep. WIKI-GUY-16 (talk) 11:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability not established yet, WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBurns (talk) 08:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JamesBurns, we don't make assumptions like "will be notable soon". Usrnme h8er (talk) 12:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: What is the point of deleting an article when it will probably be recreated in less than a month? It already has reliable sources saying that this is an official single with a release date in the very near future. BambooBanga (talk) 19:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is it shouldn't have been created in the first place, and no one can tell the future. the song may not chart at all. 76.109.42.17 (talk) 07:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's going to be released in less than a month. 71.251.99.54 (talk) 23:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

do you even read things when you use a site or comment? Articles for singles are ok if the single is notible and has charted. No one knows if this single will cahrt because it hasn't been released yet. People are assuming it will be a success, but no one knows for sure. Everyone wants to edit on wikipedia like it's their own personal webpage, it's amazing. 76.109.42.17 (talk) 05:26, 26 December 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.