Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ours (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. Deletion concerns have been addressed. Consensus has established that the subject meets the notability guidelines for music. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 02:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ours (song)

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

Aside from charting in several countries, this isn't particularly noteworthy. Tried redirecting to Speak Now and got reverted twice, solely because of its promotional single status. Taking to AfD because on top of it not being very notable, it's not a very likely search term. –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dispute There are several songs that are promotional singles example Speak Now (song), Change (Taylor Swift song). Also this user obviously didn't read the discussion page and see that a consensus was reached that it is notable as it is a single release. User talk:RickyBryant45324 03:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC) struck vague !vote because this user has made a more conventional "keep" !vote below. —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those songs have articles because their notability has been demonstrated. I'm reading the talk page discussion right now and all I see that sources are supposedly confirming it as a single, there's going to be a music video - that's nice, but you still have to prove why it's notable before it gets an article. We don't have articles for all songs that are singles because not all singles are notable. –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's notable as there is sources stating it's a possible 6th single from the album. So the article fits as notable as a beginning/start article. Whether Billboards.com has confirmed it as being a single I have yet to see as I've read through the source but saw none. I tunes indeed has released it as a digital download. And not all pages need to be deleted because one person sees them as not notable. I believe before any page gets deleted there should be a consensus on the talk page about it before redirecting/deleted. User talk:RickyBryant45324 03:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another good example of it being notable is Speak Now World Tour: Live which is a Future live album by Swift set to be released in 4 days. The difference with say "Ours" and "If This Was a Movie" there has been a review of the song already and that means there will probably be more in the future when the song hits radio. User talk:RickyBryant45324 03:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Go to this page http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/industry/record-labels/rihanna-still-reigns-hot-100-but-taylor-1005537412.story. The last sentence of the fourth paragraph says, " Swift also arrives at Nos. 13 and 26 on the Hot 100 with "Ours" (148,000; her next country radio single) and "Superman" (91,000), respectively.". It also says the same thing on this billboard page, http://www.billboard.com/news/rihanna-still-atop-hot-100-taylor-swift-1005531152.story#/news/rihanna-still-atop-hot-100-taylor-swift-1005531152.story right above the first BIG link in the middle of the page. I think the page should stay. And as far as not being a likly search item 2196 people have looked at it already http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Ours_(song) you can find this page on any article by clicking view history and then clicking Page view statistics, located right above the list of revisions and slightly off to the right.Theodorerichert (talk) 04:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I think enough sources have been provided to support that it is the next official single from the album. NYSMtalk page 04:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being a single does not automatically make a song notable for an article. –Chase (talk / contribs) 04:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the single is one of Taylor Swift, then I believe it does. NYSMtalk page 05:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy that says we keep articles on future singles that may or may not become notable because they are performed by certain artists. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I need to put keep here instead of dispute lol! Oops my bad. But as I've said I think we should keep it. User talk:RickyBryant45324 05:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whenever i create articles for songs that have not charted, i cannot even count the number of people who come up with the argument WP:NSONGS. Since this one has charted, what on earth is wrong now? Sometimes it is A, then it becomes Z. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 06:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And keep in mind Chasewc91 all article's for Taylor Swift singles have been rather small to begin with and then grown quickly. Give it a little time. I think it will be at least 2/3 as big as the article for Sparks Fly in 2 months tops. Theodorerichert (talk) 08:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • We don't !vote to keep or delete articles based on what they may be like in the coming months, we do so based on what they are now. Who's to say that this single will ever achieve greater notability than charting on the Hot 100? Assuming that it will is WP:CRYSTAL. I'm sure it will, but for now it does not. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to this WP:NSONGS we delete if there is no chance of it expanding beyond a stub and it is already past that.Theodorerichert (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close as a complete waste of time, charting on the Billboard Hot 100 alone affirms notability, not to mention passing the appropriate SNG and GNG with independent published sources. Till I Go Home (talk) 10:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Speedy close as a complete waste of time, charting on the Billboard Hot 100 alone affirms notability, not to mention passing the appropriate SNG and GNG with independent published sources. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Till I Go Home and 7&6=thirteen - WP:NSONGS says that charting on the Hot 100 may affirm notability, that is not always the case. More than half of the references in this article do nothing more than confirm single release or chart positions. Note that all of the sections of prose here are only a few sentences long. Swift has charted all songs from her album on the Hot 100 and most of them do not have articles because, like this (as of present), they have not achieved notability for anything other than charting. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So am I missing something or is there concensus the article should stay?Theodorerichert (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Speedy close - I don't even know why this is being debated.. it clearly meets WP:SONGS. Candyo32 03:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • To Theo. It seems to me that there has been a consensus to keep this article. To Chase. You have yet to listen to other peoples opinions on here and as such it shows you are not taking them into consideration. Instead you are sticking to your argument and trying to press your opinions on others. Not what I call good standards as a Wikipedia editor. I am going to find an admin and see if they will close this as there is no point in continuing this argument it is obvious that the article meets enough of the standards to be notable and as it was pointed out above as the article will grow as many other articles do when they first start out. User talk:RickyBryant45324 05:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pressing my opinions" in a discussion is certainly not a P&G violation. –Chase (talk / contribs) 15:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly passes WP:NSONGS. Like Status, I'm also happy with a redirect to Speak Now until the radio release. Novice7 (talk) 06:16, 19 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ours_(song)&oldid=1144333881"