Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Once (Diana Vickers song)

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 delete. Drop me a note when this comes out and I can restore it. Until then, deleted. Tone 20:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once (Diana Vickers song)

Once (Diana Vickers song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Creator repeatedly removes SD tags. Song fails

I didn't create it, but i keep undoing the SD tag! The song is due to be released in April! It has references, what is your problem?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by LilJackie (talk • contribs) 23:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I removed the Youtube link that was placed here - this is a discussion over the possible deletion of an article. It is based on the WP standards of
  future events. What the song sounds like is immaterial to that discussion. (GregJackP (talk) 14:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC))[reply
  ]

• Delete Clear failure of
  WP:NSONG as an unreleased song. No objection to recreation if it charts. I42 (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

It Doesn't get released to April!! There are many song pages which have less information and less references! I've also just added references from Amazon!--LilJackie (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Which is why it also fails
  WP:CRYSTAL (GregJackP (talk) 23:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC))[reply
  ]

• Delete. Fails
  WP:NSONG, but no objection to recreation if it charts, which will not be until at least 23 April. That's over a month away. anemoneprojectors talk 23:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete for now per
  csdnew 23:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's probably likely the song will chart when it is released but until then, why clutter Wikipedia with an article with a yet to be notable song?
  talk) 15:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• DONT DELETE! All you need to add when it charts is the chart positions. It ahs artwork, tarcklsiting, release date! What more do you want! —Preceding unsigned comment added by OliverL906 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• DONT DELETE! I aggree with the comment above, the page has so much infomation on it unlike some of the other April singles. How can you consider this page for deleting when pages like This Ain't a Love Song (Scouting for Girls song) has so much less infomation on it, all you need to add is the chart positions after it charts, alot of pages are upcomming releases and dont have chart positions so why should this be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by A Lonley Cherry Tree (talk • contribs) 18:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC) — A Lonley Cherry Tree (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Don't Delete. This artical shouldn't be deleted, it's out soon, and soon enough your going to re-open it.. a waste of time, you will have to upload single cover again, all the information. I agree with comment abvoe, you only need to add the chart performance.--SitDownOnIt (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not a valid reason for keeping an article which does not conform to policies. I42 (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Week Keep. It has enough information but it needs cleaned up, other then that i would say keep.(CK...... (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • The issue is not with the quality or length of the article, but the subject itself. I42 (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is just going to have to be made again in a few weeks if it is deleted now so I there's no point deleting it. --Sumeet 92 (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it?
    WP:CRYSTAL addresses just this kind of assumption. I42 (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Userify, by which I mean, Delete but park it somewhere, until it qualifies as notable by being actually released and hitting the charts. Not only fails the Crystal Ball test, but also the notability test. There are four references, but none qualify as an independent reliable source: one is Twitter, two are Amazon, and one is the singer's own website. A Google search turns up an occasional mainstream mention of the fact that the song is going to be coming out (this for instance) but nothing substantive. --MelanieN (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Why is it even being considered for deletion, it has just as much a right to have a page as any other artist releasing a song the same day. It's released in just under 4 weeks, why delete it? --Hithere2008 (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment for all those who said don't delete because it hasn't been released yet, unfortunately and ironically, that's why there's this AFD. Please see
  csdnew 05:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete: No charts, no cover versions, no awards. Fails
  WP:NSONGS.—Kww(talk) 17:51, 25 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.