Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love on Top

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. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 07:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Love on Top

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log

)

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

Apart from appearing on one chart, this song is no more notable than any album track, and fails

Note: This debate has been included in the

Andrew_stalk 07:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

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 csp |username}}.

• Keep AFD is for that, deletion of articles. If you want to incubate it, use
  Talk:Love on Top instead. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 07:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

If it was to be incubated,

Andrew_stalk 07:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per nomination and
  talk) 08:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep This article has everything to meet
  WP:GNG. Moreover, it has charted which further supports its existence. There are hundred of articles on Wikipedia about songs which do not deserve to be here. I do not believe "Love on Top" is one of them. Out of the 32 professional reviews 4 received, above 80% of them mention this song. It got significant coverage. And please do not believe it charted in South Korea for one week. It remained at number 3 for 3 weeks selling above 50000 copies (which equals to 5000 copies in the US) each week. There is at least a quote by Beyonce in background. What more do you want? Jivesh • Talk2Me 08:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Is there verification for the music video? —

Andrew_stalk 09:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Only fansites i guess. But fansites will not be accepted here although i know 90& of time whatever they report are simply true. Jivesh • Talk2Me 10:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone has a link stating a video has been shot? Please. Jivesh • Talk2Me 11:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think it should remain, his notoriety will come soon, with projections music video and single.Silencio faz bem • Talk2Me 13:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Adabow and Novice.
  ^talk 10:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - It meets
  WP:GNG. selling 50000 copies is enough for notable music.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - Same as the keep comments above. This is a very detailed article for a song which hasn't been released as a single. Gong by Beyonce's track history, at least 3 more singles will be released from 4, and the odds of Love on Top, Countdown, End of Time, Party or I Was Here becoming a single are extremely high, thus they will become a 'single' and not be a 'song' anymore, so to me it makes sense to keep them. There is clearly a lot of info about this song, and it has charted, it doesn't matter if it has only charted in Korea, it's still a chart. And a song review within an album = a song review. The song is still being written about and attracting attention, so that point is redundant, because hundreds of articles will use songs reviews from an album review. I think I have made my point. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 10:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per reasons stated above Crystal Clear x3 11:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The song charted and there is significant coverage. My love is love (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - According to
  WP:VERIFY says, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Therefore, I believe this article is notable enough and verifiable enough to remain a standalone music article. - Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 17:07, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per above. The sources give significant attention to the song, so whether or not it charted is immaterial. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It charted and there is plenty of third party coverage. It is notable. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 18:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. If anything, incubate for a while - This is an issue I've warned about for some time. The article is a nice size and good info, but honestly, I can make an article like this for every Gaga song from Born This Way as well. It isn't really fair. It doesn't take much to find this amount of info for a song.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 19:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral — Article was obviously only created so that Beyonce could have more song articles on Wikipedia. Seems like
  start 19:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Charted. Sourced thoroughly. Everything. Meets GNG and SONGS. If a music video is indeed in the making, than this song will soon become more worthy of an article than Suga Mama and Freakum Dress (both of which are GA articles). --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо
• Keep per Cprice. RatiziAngelou^contribs 20:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral per Nathan and Ending-start Pixelyoshi (discuter) 20:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with the other users, the article provides much information about the song and has notoriety.
  Msg 00:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Agree with the others.
  talk) 11:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to 4 and edit protect. This must be lifted however once allowable under Wikipedia policies. Valuable information like its (one instance) charting could be placed in the album page instead. No substantial coverage yet. Wikipedia however is not based on speculation, therefore suggestions that it might chart in other countries, might be released, might have a video accompaniment are moot. --Efe (talk) 13:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep- As stated by other users before me, the song has charted very well in Korea, remaining in the Top 10 in the country for a month and a half (roughly). As the creator of the page (with some great help from other users), i can honestly say the article was created ONLY to educate people on the song and in no way is to "favor Beyonce" by giving her more song article. Anyone using
  WP:INDISCRIMINATE as an excuse to delete the article is speaking out of their ass, excuse the language, because to them this is just another Beyonce article made only because of that- to be a Beyonce article. But no. I saw the song had charted VERY well in Korea and took advantage of that to create a page that details the songs creation and speaks very highly on the structure of the song, focusing mainly on the vocal structure used in the song, which is a new thing to Beyonce. I do not understand what to "Incubate the article" means, so i can not voice my opinions on that. Theuhohreo (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• WP:INCUBATE. Its there. And Knowles did not speak heavily of the song. That was just part of their marketing blitz, and that's found in her website which is makes it an info taken from a primary source, not secondary. I can't even find it now. --Efe (talk) 03:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• That helped. In a worse case scenario i would ask that the article be
  incubated because their is no use in losing the information and work done, if deleted. But my vote remains to keep the article (note: this is NOT a second vote, just a re-statement). And the quote for "Love on Top" is included in the source given. You have to read the formatted ref. Theuhohreo (talk) 03:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Incubate. Not lose the information. That's why mine was to just redirect this to 4. Yes. I saw it the note. But still its a primary source, which doesn't count as a "substantial coverage". --Efe (talk) 05:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The other discriminate info (chart info) could be merged into the album page instead. --Efe (talk) 03:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I just want to let all of you know that Beyonce is not among the ones giving interviews here and there to talk about her songs. Best proof is "Single Ladies" which was so popular in the US. Yet, she never mentioned something about the development of the song. Same for the rest except "Beautiful Liar" (2007). Jivesh • Talk2Me 07:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merging is not a solution. 4 is already at 100KB and i assure you that it will grow even more with the release of more singles, her tour, etc. Jivesh • Talk2Me 07:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Page contains enough valid references to sustain its notability. SnapSnap 00:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, although I m against the creation of pages for non-singles experience has taught me that the community is happy to have pages like this exist when there are reliable sources. This song has receieved a lot of coverage from reliable sources, it has charted on a national single chart and is thus notable per
  WP:SNOWBALL to me...) — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 14:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Not notable and fails
  WP:SONGS ׺°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º× 18:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Can you please state why it fails
    WP:SONGS" out there as the excuse, but don't really have anything to back that up. Theuhohreo (talk) 19:37, 9 August 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.