Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I'm Tryna

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. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Tryna

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

Music of unclear notability. Article fails WP:Notability (music) in its current state. No attempt made to establish its WP:Notability. Wikicology (talk) 12:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Wikicology (talk) 13:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that it charted, which would seem to me to satisfy WP:NSONG #1. Can you comment on that, and why you still believe it fails NMUSIC? Also, this might just be how you worded your nomination, but the article's "current state" is irrelevant to whether it should be deleted, as is the "attempt" (i.e., "effort"?) other editors have made to develop it. What matters is the topic's potential. What "attempt" did you make, per WP:BEFORE, prior to nominating this? postdlf (talk) 14:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:postdlf the question you should as yourself is “if satisfying one criteria satisfy the other criteria”? 2. If notability is based on satisfying only one criteria?. 3. Why the article creator and other contributors fails to establish its notability with reliable sources? 4. Why your auguments is centered on a single criteria. 5. Why you had not made effort to add reliable sources before or after your comments here. 6. Why it has not won significant awards or honors. 7. Why it has not been independently performed by another Notable musician.Wikicology (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is your nomination, not mine, so it's up to you to justify it. Nor am I making an "augument" [sic], but I'm instead asking you questions so as to analyze your rationale. I stumbled across this AFD when you mistakenly added it to the list-related deletion discussions; I have no investment in or history with this article, not that it would matter, as WP:NOEFFORT is not a deletion rationale. Is your argument that a song must satisfy all the criteria of NSONG? That's not a consensus-supported interpretation, so far as I am aware. postdlf (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found this MTV write-up [1] but I'm neutral as to whether it, in combination with its chart appearance, is sufficient to warrant a standalone page. At the least, the title a plausible search term and can be redirected to O (Omarion album). Gongshow talk 16:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

article fails WP:NSONG which clearly stipulated that a song is notable if it satisfy the criteria below: if it

Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts.
Has won one or more significant awards or honors, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.
Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups.

Songs and singles are notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work.From my WP:NPOV, I won't consider 1/3 a pass. Wikicology (talk) 17:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (inform) @ 19:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't usually !vote in this field, but the quote from NSONG given just above by Wikicology is out of context. In the guideline, the list of the 3 factors is preceded by "The following factors suggest that a song or single "may" be notable, though a standalone article should still satisfy the aforementioned criteria." To me, the word "suggest" clearly indicates that they are additive: factors all of which need to be considered, but no single one of which is definitive, either for or against notability (The aforementioned criterion is "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.") As a guideline, this seems to be to offer great latitude in both directions, making any individual decision a matter of judgment, even more so than most notability guidelines. DGG ( talk ) 18:36, 15 September 2014 (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.