Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Gotta Know

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. Courcelles 22:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I Gotta Know

I Gotta Know (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Is this a joke? How on earth does this pass

• Delete The article has no content. It should be deleted especially since it already meets A3 criteria under
  WP:SPEEDY deletion. Even the infobox has no content. //Gbern3 (talk) 20:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Keep Now that there's an actual article, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be kept. //Gbern3 (talk) 08:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A3 specifies "no content"; a short descriptive sentence is content. We don't delete stubs when a brief check at Google Books turns up references talking about the topic, e.g. here Sharktopus ^talk 20:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A song by Elvis Presley is not any old short stub. I think this notable. At worst it could be merged into the articles by both Cliff Richard and Elvis Presley.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And where would 'Elvis Presely' be a notability criteria under

WP:GNG? Heck even Michael Jackson is not considered a notability criteria. NSONGS specificially says independent articles should only be created where there is detailed information from reliable third party sources. Here there is None. It has purely been created for the purpose of filling in gaps in a list/template. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

This is true, if you are to build an encyclopedia based on rules. But the proof in the notability generally is already existent by conducting a google book search. Not to mention that Elvis is the King of popular music so should be inherently notable. I believe most Elvis songs to be notable, just like the Beatles song are generally all notable. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article has been expanded and references have been added so that I believe that notability has now been established. While researching it, I ran across a different song of the same name, and wrote an article I Gotta Know (Wanda Jackson song). At first, I thought it was the same song because Wanda Jackson was closely associated with Elvis Presley, but I listened to both songs, and they are clearly different songs. Now, Wanda Jackson is closely associated with Elvis Costello, so it is best to be careful about such things. Cullen328 (talk) 05:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent Job Cullen.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and I'm calling for SNOW. One might say that, ahem, the first stub version was, well, you know, a bit meager, but a small helping of
  WP:BEFORE would be advisable. In other words, this wasn't a very good nomination. Drmies (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 21 July 2011 (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.