Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Run the World (song)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 - policy based argument, majority of editors, etc. WilyD 08:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Run the World (song)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per

WP:PUFFERY
. We have the following:

In short, there seems to be nothing remotely notable about this song (either here or when doing a quick Google search) that isn't already outlined in

WP:GNG. It wasn't released as a single, it didn't chart, it hasn't received any notable acclaim or awards. Nothing. SplashScreen (talk) 22:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment. If this article should be deleted this, this (it even does not have a background and its a GA, how is that possible?), this maybe should be too? I know that these ones charted, but they are not different (even worse) than "Run the World". —
    (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Indeed. But those were just some examples of articles which does not include to be GA's here, they are more like stubs. Nothing personal though, they are not the only articles who look like stub and are GA's. My thing is, "Run the World" has enough information for to stay as an article. And Calvin, I didn't say they are not well written, but do not contain enough information to be GA's... you seem to be forgetting yourself about a year ago. ... typically you. —
    (talk) 00:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • ""Run the World" has enough information for to stay as an article" - Tomica, I don't mean to sound like a broken record but I've had to ask you a few times in a few different AfDs. Please take a look at
    WP:ATA. It'll save us all some time. And perhaps we can save personal disputes for elsewhere :) SplashScreen (talk) 00:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • That's still Background for the song and has a far better Composition from "Red Lipstick". —
    (talk) 00:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Getting blocked for what? Statυs (talk) 00:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing that has absolutely nothing to do with this AfD. SplashScreen (talk) 00:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware of what disruptive editing is? Statυs (talk) 00:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm replying to one. SplashScreen (talk) 00:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
In all fairness, Status, Tomica nor me have been disruptive. It's a discussion, not disruption. Aaron • You Da One 00:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But it has nothing to do with this AfD at all. If you want to argue over other articles, use the talk pages of those articles. Not this AfD. SplashScreen (talk) 00:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  Gongshow Talk 00:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: this article seems to have enough sufficient information about the composition and theme of the song, critical reception and relevant background information. Songs don't have to chart to be notable. −
    Jar 03:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Again, having lots of coverage does not mean that a Wikipedia article is kept (
    WP:VALINFO). Unless there are sources that cover this song outside of the context of Love?, it will be deleted. SplashScreen (talk) 08:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Status, I reccomend that you either contribute constructively to this AfD or not at all. Baiting other users and applying smoke and mirrors techniques is not improving the discourse. SplashScreen (talk) 10:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to be the one replying to everyone's opinions as if you're gonna change their mind and bringing up stuff from almost a year ago. None of which have any place in the AFD nomination at hand. Statυs (talk) 10:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "keep !voter" I didn't even !vote on this. :') Statυs (talk) 10:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You only do things which suit your Status. If it doesn't suit you, you don't want to do it. You want those articles I did deleted, even though they charted, but you want yours to stay. It's called double standards. Aaron • You Da One 11:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, now I remember! It was you, of course! I already explained this to you. You seem to like bringing up the same old shit over and over again. You actually don't even know me, so that's quite of an odd statement. Statυs (talk) 11:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only ever said it once before. Sarcasm is not appreciated or needed. I don't know you, but I can get an idea of what you're like from your editing, comments and edit summaries. Aaron • You Da One 11:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's enough information about the song for a individual article. Songs don't have to chart to be notable like someone already said here.
    Talk That Shit 13:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Weak Delete Could be a good article, but right now it's just a lot of fluff and
    WP:NSONGS, although this too could change. 70.112.234.243 (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Just as an example (and out of curiosity) if songs like this didn't chart, would they be up for deletion? Because, if you remove the "Background" section of Run the World, the article still has enough notable info about the song. So i don't understand how it's "A classic case of trying to make the article bigger by adding "Background info".. can someone explain these points? thanks . −
    Jar 22:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Here at AfD, we base arguments on actualities and not possibilities. If you are !voting based on the content of different and unrelated articles, perhaps you should read the aforementioned guideline and change your views accordingly or strike your original comment. SplashScreen (talk) 23:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Huh? The second paragraph in "music and lyrics" is about the album? The third paragraph is about specific songs on the album, including "Run the World", that are about her estranged husband. Statυs (talk) 01:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, sources. Synonymous with references, those little notes at the bottom. Anyway, the album is the main topic of most of the sources used for this song, which suggests a merge to me. Also, some of them don't even mention the song.  The Steve  06:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Might as well reply to the "concerns". First of all, the background section is a relevant piece of information. "It should not be assumed that the reader is familiar with the artist's history and/or previously released albums. If it's necessary to put these items into context for the reader to further his understanding of later content in the article, a background section is suggested." Love? was pushed back due to leaks and she then left her label. "Run the World" was then recorded with her new album. There are six reviews of the song. Information on the song being about her husband Marc, whom she separated from 2 months after the release of the album. Confusing lines about the original version of the song? It is clearly stated that Rick Ross was to be featured, and was removed at the last minute. Vibe is an urban magazine, and Vulture is owned by the New York Times. Unreliable? Ha! A song doesn't have to chart to be notable. Statυs (talk) 01:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amen to that.
    Till I Go Home 05:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment. I cannot see anywhere in the article that establishes notability for the song. In view of the arguments going on am I missing something or is just because it is Lopez? Of course, we all know that notability is not inherited, so that can't be it! --Richhoncho (talk) 08:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - In my opinion there is enough content to establish notability away from the album it features on. It has been covered in reliable sources and while they may not be entirely focused on the song - it still gained some coverage. I have weighed up the situation and feel there is enough. We know that a song doesn't have to chart to get a notable badge. Disregarding background information as fancruft does not sit right with me in this case - maybe the general reader would like to know about the background of the project it is from. After all a fan would already know the background, so why would it be only interesting to them. But that is a different story.Rain the 1 22:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Raintheone. Kind Regards
    talk) 03:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • It may not be the most high brow of articles - it may not hold the same standard notability of a Billboard number one has. But I'm satisfied that it passes GNG.Rain the 1 16:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made no comment regarding *quality,* I merely asked where in the article is notability established. You have failed to answer, saying it is your *opinion* that it passes GNG. I repeat my question, "Exactly where in the article is notability estabished?" Simple enough question and if you can't answer it then the article should be deleted for failing
    WP:NSONGS etc --Richhoncho (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. At first I was non-committal, although notability had never been established, there was a fair amount of information however puffed up, and articles do improve. The underlying problem then becomes nearly every non-notable, non-descript song by a notable artist becomes notable (hence my earlier question, which quite tellingly, nobody answered, “is this about Lopez, rather than the song?” I then looked further at the posts on this page, and asked a further question, “where is notability established in the article?” Only one response and that editor ignored the question altogether.
So I feel I have established that those saying keep have acknowledged that the song is non-notable. I also note that there is not one reasoned argument that says keep. I also think I have done more than my fair share to try and save the article on this page. Fairly indicative that the song most certainly fails
WP:GNG
.
Note to all interested in this AfD (with apologies for being so rude): AfD discussion
WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS says Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). --Richhoncho (talk) 08:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment. As repeatedly pointed out the references are related to the album the song comes from, which quite plainly means the album is notable, there are no references specifically for the song and notability is not inherited. Ignoring
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I am quite happy to see this song kept IF somebody can establish the notability of the song. Nobody has yet. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
My point is, about WP, rather than this specific song, keeping this song is contra to the following, and probably other guidelines,
WP:NSONG. Although I wouldn't argue the points you make above (and remember I am not specifically against this article staying), not sure it is a valid argument for a "keep." At least you have actually bothered to give a reason to keep over and above others who don't really bother to establish a reason. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:22, 17 July 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Run_the_World_(song)&oldid=1219321579"