Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pyromania (Cascada song)

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. Cirt (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pyromania (Cascada song)[edit]

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

Unreleased single from an unreleased album. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Lacks references to 3rd party sources. No indication that this song meets WP:NSONGS. Might be notable once it charts but not today. Contested redirect. RadioFan (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only reason people know about it is because it was announced as a new song and was leaked. There are absolutely no sources besides forum speculation in regards to remixes, release dates, album, etc. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. The song is now officially released as airplay and the music video is out, however, sources are still lacking and notability might be the only problem as of right now. I'm sure in a few more weeks it will certainly pass. The question is is it worth it to delete it only to recreate it very soon? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons stated above. Mister sparky (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 06:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There have been a number of references added recently but the reliability of these references is not clear. They appear to be web forums, blogs or similar primary sources RadioFan (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All Cascada singles have their own articles or sections. Removing this article and creating a new one when it is released in the near future is in my head a stupid idea (I mean, March 19^þ is not far away). One of the first hits I got on Google was a page which offers a download link, track list and album art. This probably means that a promo is released (and a promo is just a limited version of a single, ergo the single is not unreleased?). Removing the article will also break the chain of links under 'Cascada Singles Chronology' in the Infobox. The YouTube video has got more than 200.000 views in three days - why would not it make it to the charts? 83.109.100.10 (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It may make the charts, it may not. We dont have a crystal ball to tell us. Notability guidelines are very clear and very restrictive for songs. If it does make the charts, the article can be recreated. The converse question needs to be asked as well, how can we be sure it will make the charts? Is there something about this band or this song that would make it appropriate to bypass Wikipedia policy? How does it differ from all the other artists and their songs that have to meet the same policy?--RadioFan (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I totally agree with the above and, considering that the youtube music video already has 108k views already, I think it's just a waste of time deleting it. You're only going to make it again! --Ben10Joshua (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the outcome is delete, the article can be protected to prevent recreation until it can meet WP:NSONGS.--RadioFan (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and have them do a non-forecasting article when it is time. --Bejnar (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, with no prejudice against recreation when (if) it eventually passes WP:NSONGS.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2010 (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.