Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Not Myself Tonight

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 keep. I appreciate that some of the arguments are not based in policy, but ultimately I cannot close this debate any other way. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not Myself Tonight

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Typical premature article, containing such earth-shattering information as "A music video will be shot soon. No other details have been revealed." No charts, no cover versions, no awards. Fails WP:NSONGS. Efforts to redirect to album article, as recommended by WP:NSONGS, have been thwarted. —Kww(talk) 19:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to badger each keep, but I will point out that at this point, none of the keep indications (afireinside27, HC 5555, Alexshunn, 190.29.227.98) have even commented on the relevant guideline, WP:NSONGS.—Kww(talk) 04:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One final comment, and then I will bite my tongue for 24 hours until this AFD goes away one way or the other. People ask what harm is done by premature articles: how about that no one can figure out who wrote it?

Maybe Esther Dean? [1][2][3][4][5]
Maybe no one knows? [6]
Maybe Palow da Don helped [7][8][9][10][11][12]
Hell, as long as we are just guessing, maybe Christina Aguilera wrote it: [13].

Articles about songs that haven't got enough information to provide even the basics (like writer and genre) invite chaos, because there are too many editors that feel compelled to insert their best guess into any and all empty infobox fields.—Kww(talk) 20:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflicts are not a valid reason to delete an article. KingOfTheMedia (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. WP:NSONGS says the article must have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I found sources from:

There :) KingOfTheMedia (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)— KingOfTheMedia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

"Significant"?—Kww(talk) 19:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. A whole article from the British Broadcasting Corporation (one of the biggest news networks in the world) is quite enough, as is the whole article from the UK broadsheet The Independent and so on... KingOfTheMedia (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Song will be premiering at the end of this week and already has a release date. Will obviously chart in the coming weeks. No point in deleting. afireinside27 (talk) 20:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Same thoughts than afireinside27.--HC 5555 (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a real song, and will be premiering soon. With more suprises to come, the single release date could happen soon, I think we should keep it, unless someething occurs to question is authenticity. (Alexshunn (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Redirect to Bionic (Christina Aguilera album). It will be notable soon enough, but right now, it isn't. –Chase (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Was anounced in her official site. The song needs an article, and will be released the friday, according to RCA employer in Australia. --190.29.227.98 (talk) 00:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bionic. There is not way for us to predict the future performance of the song. And per WP:NSONG, even charted songs don't necessarily deserve a separate article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? It's by Christina Aguilera, not some obscure artist. It's the lead single off of her highly-anticipated new album. Of course it will deserve a separate article. afireinside27 (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.86.130 (talk) [reply]

"Will" is the operative verb here. I don't think anyone is arguing that it won't probably meet the criteria for having an article at some point in the future. The question to be resolved at this AFD is whether it meets those criteria now. Right now, it does not, and serves only as an accumulation point for rumors, gossip, and the occasional copyright violation.—Kww(talk) 21:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While you're still arguing here, the lyrics of the song was posted in her official site... Of course this need a separate article. Will -> No. Is -> Yes. --190.29.227.98 (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As others have said, it is clearly a real song that will premiere within the next few days. I see no point in deleting the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by David Rush (talk • contribs)

Redirect to Bionic. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The single will released in late march. Confirmed. So, why we have to "redirect" somthing already announced? And, we aren't talking about and indie group. --Daviddavid0100 (talk) 06:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: So much fancruft, a song doesn't have it's own article until AFTER it's released or AFTER it's charted. Not before. The article will be re-created after. Jayy008 (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article will be re-created after. -> This is necessary? I mean, it represents a complete waste of time. It was announced, and in less than a week, will be on, at least, ten charts. --Daviddavid0100 (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ridiculous to redirect it. It premiers this week for crying out load! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.121.148 (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's about Wikipedia guidelines not personal opinion, the deletion can be reverted when it charts by the click of a button, until then it doesn't meet noteablility guidelines. Jayy008 (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of sources that confirm the song as an official single, not to mention Christina's official website confirms the song as a new single. Plenty of song articles around here have been created before the song was released, the only thing that made them proper candidates for deletion is if there were a lack of reliable sources confirming them as an official single. Besides, this song is being released four days from now. Poor timing to nominate this article for deletion, there's too many sources supporting its right to exist. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 02:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I read WP:NSONGS, and this article meets all of the requirements. A future single can only have a separate article if there are enough reliable sources covering it. Practically all the major music/entertainment websites have confirmed "Not Myself Tonight" as an official single, and most importantly, so has Christina's label. Maybe this article can be restored from deletion with the click of a button, but there must be a valid reason for the article to be deleted in the first place. So far, I see no reason to delete this article when it meets all the guidelines that require it to be here. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 02:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to point out that provision for future singles in WP:NSONGS. There are provisions for future albums, but none for future singles.—Kww(talk) 03:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Lots of coverage now, and no need to delete it when it will even become greater during next week. Candyo32 (talk) 04:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even If there wasn't enough info at the moment, why remove it? It's the lead single of one of today's major artists and carries enough notability for anticipation, and in a week's time you will have plenty of stuff to put in it. Alone the fact that someone deemed this article for deletion while there are thousands on here that have no place in wiki, should be kind of a point ;) Anyway it seems every single of today's mainstream artist seem to have pages, why do you want to delete this one.Dollvalley (talk) 11:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All fancruft, a vote is not a consensus! Jayy008 (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article definitely needs some sources, but that cover art has been revealed and a sneak peek has been released. Not to mention it is being released to radio in three days. No need to delete if sources are added. --Shadow (talk) 10:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend this article be deleted without discussion, nobody is saying any valid reasons, an article can't exist simply because it exists and their is sources, it HAS to chart or be RELEASED to purchase. Why does nobody understand? Jayy008 (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What don't you understand about IT'S GOING TO PREMIERE THIS WEEK? We have cover art, release dates, and even the cover art. It's premiering in two days, goes to radio next week, and the digital download comes out in two weeks. There is no reason to delete it. --Shadow (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My take on this the article currently does not meet the guidelines established. While KingOfTheMedia has provided sources from major sites none of these are in the actual article. Right now it is mostly un-sourced except for the cover art, Polow da Don's involvement, the fact it is an official single and the release date for Australia. In the first source provided doesn't mention Ester Dean plus the rest of the article is un-sourced. In order for this article to be notable the links mentioned above should be in the article plus all the information in the article should be properly sourced.

Right now Delete because the article is under sourced. If the article has more references and is sourced properly then Keep.♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 20:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. While the song is being released in a couple of days, and there are sources, it's going to be about another week if and when it charts.--User:Gabe19 (talk) 14:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 19:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If only because this makes the Lady Gaga fans mad. Kidding! :D No, seriously, what's all the fuss? The song is only going to get more and more coverage as the weeks go by. It's already been written up by several major sources, including Entertainment Weekly, and more reviews will come. If you delete the page now, it will only have to get re-written when the video is made and the single hits the charts - and we all know it will. Even if the song bombs, it's worth writing about. This is, as someone else said, Christina Aguilera, not some obscure artist. -- HollywoodDoll (talk) 14:02, 30 March 2010 (PST)
Keep actually for a change i agree with the creation of the article. It is actually reasonable well sourced and is less than two weeks away from release but has already recieved some critical reception and my guess is in the coming days it will recieve even more independent coverage. In terms of content compare it to a released song like I Got You (Leona Lewis song) and the only thing its really missing is some charts.Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:26, 31 March 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.