Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychosocial (song)

Psychosocial (song)

Contested redirect of non-notable song scheduled for release. Fails WP:MUSIC#SONGS. Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose deletion of this article. Just because it has not been released yet doesn't mean it's unnotable. If we delete this article, we'll have to delete Coldplay's next single, or KoRn's, or Disturbed's. You gonna do that? And Mdsummermsw, just becuase you don't believe it isnt notable doesn't mean you're correct. Jasca Ducato (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We can't predict notability of any individual songs. Jasca, I would encourage you to read WP:AADD in entirety - your paragraph hits about three or four arguments in there. As for whether it's a correct assessment, that's why we're here in AFD, to see if there is correctness in the suggestion that it's not notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this article should be kept because it IS a notable song, it's the first single from their upcoming album. I do also believe the single will become more notable and the article will improve upon it's release, but I feel these arguments have already been dismissed by Dennis The Tiger. REZTER ^TALK ø 20:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose deletion, it's not a random song it is a single, like Slipknot's first eleven (that all have articles). I don't see how it can fail WP:MUSIC#SONGS when it's not about a song. As was noted on the articles talk page, why does a template for "Future singles" exist, if none of them are notable? Black ngold29 20:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We still need to demonstrate notability. Rather than argue the point, please read up on WP:MUSIC#SONGS. Outside of this you'll likely get nowhere. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - for what it's worth, I have no prejudice to recreation if it does become notable. Meantime, it needs to be demonstrated as notable for the present time. To say it's notable in the future is what I call crystalballery - because we are not, quite frankly, a crystal ball. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand that there is little notability at the moment, but as I stated, the reason for the proposed deletion is incorrect. How can a single fail WP:MUSIC#SONGS? What's the notability policy on singles? Black ngold29 20:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Yes, it's a single. Like that article says, a single is a song. How do we know if a song is notable? WP:MUSIC#SONGS. How do we know if a song will be notable? We don't. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A single is not a song. A single is basically an album which usually contains about three songs. This article is not about the song "Spit It Out", it is about the single entitled Spit It Out. Black ngold29 21:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this whole discussion is a waste of time because in a few weeks time the article will be recreated because it WILL be notable, I guarantee it. I know this isn't reason for keeping it I just consider this whole process to be pointless. As a result of it's deletion I believe that there may be IP contributions contradicting this AfD nomination too considering the popularity of the band are you then going to request the page to be protected? It's all just a waste of time. REZTER ^TALK ø 21:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, I think we all realize that there is about a 1% chance that this will not chart. Why delete now, when in two weeks we'll have to just re-do the whole thing? I see this more as a WP:IGNORE than Crystal Ball. Black ngold29 21:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Thetrick (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Wait until there are more sources and/or until it gets at least halfway up the charts. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May I pose the question that do you guys think that it is at the benefit of Wikipedia to remove this article or is it just a formality? Because if this just a formality shouldn't we follow WP:IGNORE? I see the reasons for deletion as nothing more than a formality based on Wikipedia's standards, I don't see Wikipedia immediately benefiting by the loss of this article of what effectively is 2 weeks. REZTER ^TALK ø 21:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We follow WP:IGNORE, indeed. However, this is not the time. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which of those point are you referring to? REZTER ^TALK ø 22:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK see WP:UIAR. "If there's a better way to do something than what the rules say, do it the better way." Do you believe that deleting this article so that it is open to a lot of IP vandalism and to eventually be recreated in two weeks the "better way"? REZTER ^TALK ø 22:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I actually see a music single that we have nothing conclusive on whether it will meet WP:MUSIC on release. Popular? Sure. Chart information? If it's not on the air, it's not on the charts, right? Vandalism is trivial for the article - that's what WP:CSD is for. Recreated in two weeks? What if it isn't popular? Pessimal outlook, but then we don't want to set a precedent that opposes WP:CRYSTAL - for good reason, in my opinion. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Why does the "Future single" template exist then? Black ngold29 23:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        As much as you may keep regurgitating these Wikipedia standards, I cannot comprehend the benefit it may have on Wikipedia by deleting this article, it's beyond logic. It is just creating more work for editors and removing information from the encyclopaedia. I will accept the decision of deletion if this is the case but it is clear to me that there is no logic behind it, at all. REZTER ^TALK ø 23:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's back up here, as I stated earlier this article is not about a song. It is about a single. There is a difference, which I outlined above. I see a "Single" as basically a limited release album which contains (usually) three songs. Per the policy on albums, "may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources". This single has been mentioned by Blabbermouth, MetalHammer, Roadrunner Records, Rolling Stone, and the band's official website. Aren't those reliable sources? Black ngold29 23:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm backing Blackngold29 here. He's listed plenty of reliable sources to keep the article. Jasca Ducato (talk) 23:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:CRYSTAL. There just isn't a guarantee that this single will chart. Bands that sell millions of records still have singles tank sometimes. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep — there are a number of reliable sources which give significant coverage to this single. It easily passes the general notability guidelines for Wikipedia, and given that it is a single by a major band, there is little reasonable doubt that it will chart. Wikipedia may not be a crystal ball, but the language on WP:MUSIC is inclusive rather than exclusive — editors arguing that it fails to meet those guidelines because it has not charted are missing the point, and being rather bloody-minded about it to boot — to wit "A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". This easily meets that standard. All songs which meet the specific guidelines are notable; some notable songs may not meet those guidelines — for example, why do we have a {{future single}} template if not for this exact reason? You don't even have to ignore any rules to keep this song — it already meets the guidelines for inclusion, and only a narrow and incorrect reading of guidelines could possibly claim it is not notable. --Haemo (talk) 10:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]