Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Put Your Hands Up (If You Feel Love)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2011 June 11.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. too soon. the sandbox article can be moved in as and when this charts

Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Put Your Hands Up (If You Feel Love)

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

Article about song that hasn't even charted yet. This is a

WP:CRYSTAL vio at it's best. Plus, there is a bigger, more referenced sandbox on this subject started in 2011. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 16:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is no way the article should be deleted. This article represents the fourth single from Kylie's Aphrodite album, a single which is in no way inferior to the previous three. This article is very important in the informating and recording of the Aphrodite era on Wikipedia and should for no reason be removed. This article must remain on Wikipedia as it will be updated and information will be added as it becomes available. Please, do not delete. 115.70.108.58 (talk) 06:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- Nothing you said has any weight here on Wiki. In your plea, you've asked for probably 4 rules to be broken, ranging from CRYSTAL to NEUTRALITY, so I don't think this holds as any valid opinion in this discussion.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 05:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This single has now been officially announced as per the references in the article, along with tracklisting. It also has an official video and independent coverage. It may only be a digital single, but "The One" has its own page so I fail to see why this shouldn't. (Paul237 (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Note: When did Existence equal notability? Plus, there is another sandbox by the Kylie Minogue WikiProject that was created over 2 months ago. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 21:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This song is the fourth release from Aphrodite. It's digital only and has been confirmed as true and genuine. It has artwork and is available to pre-order. The One was the fourth release from X and is digital only. The One has an article and it hasn't been removed or contested. Therefore, I feel Put Your Hands Up should have its own article, too. I come to Wikipedia to find things out. I was pleased to read about this single here. Surely that's the whole point of an encyclopedia, so that people can learn about things. If TPTB decide no singles deserve their own page then ::I'd agree this would be a delete, but since that's not the case I think it deserves its own page. Sorry you disagree, but my opinion is what it is. (Paul237 (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  - 1. A song needs to chart to be included.
    2. "The One" charted.
    3. That is the point of the encyclopedia, but
      Wikipedia cannot cover everything.
    4. Besides these facts, another article in a sandbox for
      WP:CWW). I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 22:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    - I think it would be better if the sandbox article is copied across to this one now. This will add credence to the 'Keep' argument. After all, even if this article is deleted in a week's time (which, let's face it, is likely) we both know it'll be resurrected the second the digital EP charts somewhere in the world (I know, I know, we're not crystal balls, etc). The problem is there's always inconsistency. You nominated "Edge of Glory" for deletion and that got accepted before it charted, purely because of snowballs and the fact that everyone knew it'd chart anyway. So to not apply the same here is perhaps unfair and shows the rules aren't being applied equally. (Paul237 (talk) 23:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
      - Please re read
        synthesis) there is a possibility that this project won't chart. It wasn't promoted much. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 23:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        Us mad fans will likely be enough to ensure it scrapes in the top 40 somewhere I'm sure. ;-) (Paul237 (talk) 23:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
        Sorry to butt in. That'd be fine. Just wait for that to happen first please.—Iknow23 (talk) 23:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        No need to apologise, it's a open discussion so there's no such thing as "butting in". I thought it was obvious, but just to make it clear, my previous message was tongue in cheek. (Paul237 (talk) 23:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
        Thank you, and no problem. But to once again pretend you were serious...I just realized that the 'top 40' mentioned is too restrictive. It could chart way lower and still have an article. to complete my thought—Iknow23 (talk) 23:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I hope it doesn't, but you're right. It could well chart lower. Oh dear. Anyway, I better not keep rambling on this page, as I'll probably get told off. Thanks for the discussion! (Paul237 (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
        Now it's my time to be more clear. I didn't mean to hope it will chart below Top 40, just that as long as it charts anywhere on a Country's main chart, it will probably then qualify for article status. :) You are welcome and thank you too.—Iknow23 (talk) 23:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate Lack of coverage in reliable sources at the moment. IWIC can you please post a link to the sandbox?
Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
- Viola! Wikipedia:WikiProject Kylie Minogue/Sandbox/2. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 22:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ A sandbox was has been in the works for a while, and this article, as of right now, is unnecessary. IHelp, you could have just redirected it yourself. No need to delete. An article should be up shortly. ℥^{start 01:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]}
- I didn't redirect it because one of the points of this article is that it has already been created as a sandbox. Copy and pasting the sandbox information into this article violates Attribution rules. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 01:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It wouldn't violate anything as long as you were the one who wrote the content located in the sandbox. But regardless, this article will need to be deleted to move the sandbox into it and such anyway, so it might as well be deleted. I support this deletion. ℥^{start 22:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]}

Keep I note that WP does allow articles about events that have yet to occur -
WP:CRYSTAL
. Given the status and popularity of Kylie Minogue, the impending release of another single by that artist is sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Further more, I am distinctly unimpressed by

User:Ending-start, User:Jivesh boodhun and User:Theuhohreo - in other words, just about everyone on this page) to come in here to support his nomination for AfD and, because of this, I urge caution before deleting this article. Deterence ^Talk 02:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

It's sad that you believe that. I am offended by such an accusation. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 04:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because I have had communication in the past with IHWIC does not mean I would support his nomination. I gave my honest opinion, and I'm sure that is all he expected of me. I find it absurd that you would try and make a big controversy out of it instead of sticking to the flipping subject. Every editor who works with songs has a right to be notified about these types of discussions.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 05:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, also, songs are not events. There are different rules for songs. If they don't chart or haven't been covered by notable artists, they don't get included. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 04:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, while I am the last person to describe myself as a fan of Kylie Minogue, she is clearly a "notable artist". Secondly, is this AfD really necessary when the release of the song is less than two weeks away? Even if this article did violate WP:CRYSTAL, (it doesn't), waiting a couple of weeks to see what happens won't do any harm to Wikipedia or the people reading it. This all seems like such a petty waste of time and energy when, in all likelihood, the single will prove worthy of this article in a couple of weeks. Deterence ^Talk 02:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It does not satisfy
WP:GNG. Jivesh • Talk2Me 03:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

*Incubate Don't just delete this and waste the information when the release date is so near. I am striking my vote and choosing Delete because I have been informed (thank you IHelpWhenICan) that a sandbox has been started here for this article and the sandbox has a much better start. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 13:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, created FAR too early. Plus i'm sceptical since Minogue said no more singles would be released from the album. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 16:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate your views around it being created too early, but the existence of the single isn't under question. There are references on the article. It's available to pre-order and preview on the Amazon MP3 store and has been officially announced. (Paul237 (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  - A single itself is not notable...
    yet a song performed by several artists or charted on national single charts is. Many songs exist... do you think all of them have their own articles? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 20:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    - You're not reading what I'm saying. I'm not contesting your view about this page being created far too early, nor in my comment did I say that all songs are notable. You said "Minogue said no more singles would be released from the album". I'm saying that this single has been officially announced. I appreciate it hasn't yet charted or been released (which is the main reason others are saying the page should be deleted), but you're referring to something Kylie said ages ago before this single was announced. So I'm just making the point that it's better to keep up to date with this kind of thing... (Paul237 (talk) 09:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Delete The article is not written too well, and the pending sandbox is a MUCH better article. This article at the current moment is horribly referenced (3 to be exact), and is very bare in it's information. Theuhohreo (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: While re-reading the music guidelines, I ran across a paragraph I never noticed before. Let us read:

In order to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or assert a band's importance on a talk page or AfD page – the article itself must document notability.

Interesting, ain't it? I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 21:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're reaching, (and that's putting it politely.) Kylie Minogue's notability is hereby verified. Deterence ^Talk 23:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to your belief, songs doesn't inherit any notability from the artists who sing them, it is the other way around. Have you read

WP:NMUSIC yet? I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 18:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Redirect to
WP:NSONG, and as advised in the guideline, such as song "should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album..." -- Whpq (talk) 19:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Please keep in mind that I also asked for the deletion of this article to replace it with a more referenced stub if it meets the notability guideline. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 22:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I was clear in stating that it does not meet notability guidelines. - Whpq (talk) 22:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mean if it eventually does meet the guideline. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 01:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Why should this article be deleted, when chart positions and reviews become available, the article will be able to expand. It has been announced as the fourth single from Aphrodite and it deserves it's own article. Mirrored Love (talk) 23:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the entire discussion before making a decision. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 01:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Why don't we instead merge the article with content from the sandbox article to create a referenced and sourced coherent article? 115.70.108.58 (talk) 01:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it breaks the attribution rules. Please read this page before you reply on this page, damn. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 01:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For goodness sake, why are you so passionately determined to kill this article when, in all probability, the content will qualify for its own article in a couple of weeks? Deterence ^Talk 04:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because he wants his sandbox article to be the main one and he apparently can't enhance this article with his own edits because that would break attribution rules. However, I think he can still edit this article to make it better - not copy and paste his article over this one. Also, I think some editors think it gives them brownie points to raise successful AfDs. Just sayin'. Paul237 (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my sandbox, it's the

WP:Kylie sandbox that's been worked on for the past 3 months in advance. What could I do to this stub without screwing up Wikipedia's copyright? And that "brownie point" stuff, seriously? I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 23:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Is there some conflict of interest behind User:IHelpWhenICan's nomination? It appears that this may be the case, WP:WikiProject Kylie Minogue/Sandbox/2. All of a sudden, this just looks like an editorial turf war. Deterence ^Talk 00:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously?... I don't even know why I'm still here on Wikipedia when there are people like you here. I'm so done, it's probably to late in the nomination, but count this as a withdraw. It's been almost 3 years of people like you, who I cannot stand to tell the truth. I'm done with this AfD, I'm done with this article, I'm done with this project, and I'm done with this encyclopedia. Cheers. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 02:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please? He's an experienced editor who works for the good of Wikipedia (if you look at his contributions, you can see that his contributions are not limited to Minogue articles alone). You could have improved the article? Also,

talk) 04:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Foul-play Everyone - So far, I can note two deletes that were mysteriously removed from an IP. My vote as well as Iknow23's were removed a while ago. I was unable to be here for the last few days, which is why I did not present this sooner. This AFD is BS and has been tampered with. I am restoring both delete votes.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 03:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few days ago, I personally reverted the removal of one vote for Delete. The IP who did it apologised and assured me that the removal was accidental. Deterence ^Talk 09:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually saw that revert and message you left him, but I ask you, could it really have been an accident to remove three different Delete votes in four separate edits? I doubt it. I felt it important to link it here as well, because frankly, its upsetting that a consensus could have possibly been severely swayed due to a foolish IPs meddlesome edits.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 09:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that 3 deletes within 4 posts by the same user would probably (almost certainly) not be accidental. Is it possible that the removal by the IP that I reverted was not connected with the 2 that you reverted? Who performed the other 2 removals? Deterence ^Talk 10:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, this would be a keep as the nominator has withdrawn (and has left Wikipedia). Regards,

talk) 05:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. Not notable yet. Agree that the sandbox article is more well developed. It can be used at the appropriate time if/when it occurs.—Iknow23 (talk) 23:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Oh God. Does not even merit an incubation. Speedy delete.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No Charts? No Awards? Not even a decent sized article (hardly a stub), hence it fails
WP:NSONG; Delete. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 05:29, 26 May 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.