Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Edge of Glory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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. An hour short of the full seven days, but as this likely qualifies as a speedy keep (not to mention WP:SNOW), there's little point in waiting until the official deadline. Owen× ☎ 15:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Edge of Glory

[edit]
The Edge of Glory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article started against the advisement of other experienced editors; shows no material in toe with the music notability guideline. Portions of the article are also unsourced. This article was also created after consensus went against it at Born This Way (check out the history of this page and Born This Way). I Help, When I Can. [12] 16:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Song has coverage in multiple independent reliable sources and in 24 hours it will have heaps more coverage when it receives radio airplay. It was premature to create the article, but it is not premature to show that the subject is notable.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 17:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONGLY KEEP : This song is amazing, and keeping this page would help her little monsters see all the reception that this song gets. I'm sure that the song will get mostly positive reviews. Not to mention, it would help this song get more publicity, as well as, learn more about the background of this song (beats, the composition, the message...etc)
  • Keep: Lady Gaga has confirmed on her website that the song will be released tomorrow. Lady Gaga is a reliable source, and it will have more coverage once it is released. Mi.bryson (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)--Mi.bryson (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For the reasons given above: the deletion of this article is silly. Although it technically might fall under WP:CRYSTAL, there really is no point in deleting an article on a something which will have the fairly predictable popularity of a Lady Gaga single because it was created before the day before it is released. This is bordering on a bureaucratic, pointy and silly nomination. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as the single is in the process of its release. More details are becoming available rapidly, and the single will be out in less than 24 hours. ★ Auree talk 20:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep the article will soon prove its notability, although this may fall under WP:CRYSTAL as previously stated, there is little point in deleting something that will obviously be re-created. --Jennie--x (talk) 22:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm not sure if I have an opinion in this discussion, given that I'm an anon, but I want to give my two cents. Given that this song is a promotional single of Born This Way, that it has sources to back up the information, that it will be released tomorrow and that it will gain considerable attention... we should keep this article. Just like Gaga's Dance In The Dark or Monster. --201.240.246.133 (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: Deleting this article the day before the song is released as a single would be really foolish. The song is already getting a bit of attention -- an article the websites of both Billboard and Rolling Stone. This is already a notable song and it hasn't even been released yet. Come now. 60.230.153.168 (talk) 06:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a confirmed single, why is this discussion about deletion still active?? now that's a fail... calvin999 (talk) 11:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The single has been released, and is the subject of much media speculation as to the success of the new album "Born This Way". The single's release is the number one news item on MTV.com. I and others have come to Wikipedia specifically for information related to this song, and it looks bad for Wikipedia to have a page that is set to recieve so many page views be marked as potentially deleted' --jon1379 (talk) 10:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Everyone, please note that when it comes to music, existence is not a criteria to be included in this encyclopedia. Please review WP:NMUSIC. Even if it does eventually meet these guidelines, it doesn't now and predicting when it does is diving into WP:CRYSTAL. I Help, When I Can. [12] 22:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: From Wikipedia's own policies as delineated in NSONG - "Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings) are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." Being the First Headline Article on MTV.com constitutes significant independent coverage, at least in the United States --jon1379 (talk) 10:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Clearly it's been announced as a single. If the mere existence of a single does not make it notable, then you have a LOT of wikipedia pages to delete. Let it go! Keep the page, obviously it's going to chart on the Billboards!--mikomango (talk) 23:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Keep:There is no need to get rid of The Edge of Glory's page. We want to know more about the song. The album page probably wouldn't have as much info as the page---- SM64DSi {talk}
  • Strong Keep: More information will be released, increasing the notability of the article. DAP388 (talk) 01:33, 10 May 2011
  • Delete, per proposal. This is just going to be yet another Wiki exercise in democracy, because it's all about the tyranny of the majority here. (not withstanding those select few who boldly exercise their administrative abilities in spite of popular fancruft) 70.153.123.13 (talk) 04:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no good reason given to delete this article, as the subject is most clearly notable. The song is currently the top selling on iTunes, for example. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Changing my opinion, this is most certainly charting in many countries, seeing the iTunes sales at present. It should be kept. — Legolas (talk2me) 03:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a PROMO single. It has a single cover. It has been released to iTunes as a promo single. Just keep it. Usher even has pages for Buzz singles. Why do people nominate things for deletion practically straight away without letting the article flourish first???? ffs just keep it!calvin999 (talk) 14:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Completely futile to delete it because it will definitely chart. Jivesh • Talk2Me 15:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though much expansion is needed at this time (including the number of sources). Even "You and I" has more sources. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The song has been officially released to iTunes and has had significant media coverage from independent sources, as stated in the article itself. Redirecting to the Born This Way album page is unadvisable because said page won't have the same information (and if it were added would make the album page too long and cumbersome). (Paul237 (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep - Will most certainly chart this week in several markets and does feature a lot of information.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 18:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: How much is this discussion gonna take? We have already 19 "keeps" against 3 "redirects" and 1 "delete". This discussion can't last forever and the delete template honestly decreases the value of the article. --190.232.80.52 (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The usual discussion period is seven days. Also note that AFD is not a vote, and just because the "keeps" far outweigh everything else, doesn't necessarily mean the result will be "keep". –anemoneprojectors– 00:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is ridiculous. This discussion is bogus, and the implication is that the voting process is useless (while we're taking a vote, even though the AfD page says it's not a vote, even though you're asked to vote) speaks volumes about why Wikipedia is having a hard time retaining editors. What is the purpose of this page if it's going to be ignored?--mikomango (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seeing that its practically snowing here, I think it can be closed prematurely. — Legolas (talk2me) 03:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Personally I am sick of these BS deletion discussions which waste everybody's time. "It hasn't charted, therefore it shouldn't have an article" is a load of codswallop. It is covered in reliable sources, is a single, and (it's OR, but it's still true) apparently it will chart in various places anyway. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also sick of this happening. This happened when I started the California King Bed article, it was deleted...and it was ultimately re-created about 2 weeks later, which makes no sense at all. Basically, someone who isn't a fan of the artist decides to preemptively remove a shitload of work that everyone else has done. The page will ultimately be reverted to what it was before this discussion. It's pathetic...and this is exactly why Wikipedia has a new editor retention problem. Because of users like the power-hungry egomaniacal nincompoop who proposed the deletion of this article. (Whoever you are, I'm not trying to hurt you, but I am entitled to my opinion). Ultimately, no one is removing the song pages of more obscure artists whose haters don't come out in droves to delete things as soon as they are typed.--mikomango (talk) 15:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please be reminded of Wikipedia's no personal attack policy mikomango. If you have a problem with the process, you aer welcome to put your points in the talk page of WP:AFD, but please don't come here to post unnecessary things. — Legolas (talk2me) 15:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please note that I did not personally attack anyone specifically. I merely stated my opinion, intended to support User:Adabow in his/her correct assessment that this process is total BS. If that's unnecessary, then perhaps you should blank out the entire thread. In the meantime, thank you, User:Legolas, for your continued dictatorial tendencies on English Wikipedia. Feel free to delete all I've offered since it's obviously your decision to make. Thanks and I'm done here.--mikomango (talk) 17:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Strong Keep This article should never have even been nominated for deletion. It is a single from her upcoming album. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 11:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's her next single, it has begun receiving press coverage and it will only be re-created within a matter of weeks.--Endlessdan (talk) 13:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note — This has been confirmed as the official third single now, the Afd becomes moot. SAomeone close this please. — Legolas (talk2me) 14:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The official third single from the album Born This Way. Peak 2 in the itnues charts and morning in the Billboard Hot 100.-- Xxvid (talk) 15:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Edge of Glory is due to be released very soon and has already achieved substantial notability via the internet and radio airplay. --Rayboy8 (talk) 17:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep "The Edge of Glory" topped the iTunes sales charts in 11 countries in two days and it's an official single now, not just promotional.[1] -- Frous (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The Edge of Glory is confirmed as third single and looks likely to get number one in USA and UK in the next couple of weeks. It seems daft to delete an article of a notable song which is having a strong response and is providing new information than the album page. --Bbbnbbb (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Although this entry meets the inclusion criteria because it's an official single now, I strongly disapprove the current trend where iTunes is routinely mentioned in sales figures, because sales figures by one retailer clearly belong BAD CHARTS (music charts that are not reliable or don't present the industry comprehensively). Just wanted to mention a discussion I started on the topic. -- Frous (talk) 12:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but you not need to be one to now that the song will chart before the next week ends (or even this). Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 01:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Song is already at #7 in mid-week official UK charts - so it is already on course to be a top 10 hit in the UK by Sunday. DJ Mike TJG (talk) 09:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - It's just a matter of time before this article is flourished with edits and more sources. Most if not all Gaga's single's have been hits, It would surprise me if this one wasn't. If it's topping charts, and already has this much 'keep' with valid reason's then It should definately stay. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 12:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - it's an official single that has topped in many charts around the world (see iTunes Top 10 in all the countries at this moment - http://www.apple.com/euro/itunes/charts/top10songs.html). --HC 5555 (talk) 16:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Come on, let us use a modicum of common sense- if it gets deleted the page will have to be recreated within an hour. The single has been reported on in scores of major newspapers and it's in the British midweek charts (as well as others I'm sure) - what else does a single have to do to warrant an article? - Tom (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: All of these votes saying, "It's an official single now," don't add up to much. It has to chart. Existence is a requirement (of course) but it is not a factor that calls for inclusion into this encyclopedia when it comes to music. I Help, When I Can. [12] 21:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you're saying that, after topping many iTunes charts over the world the song will not be featured in Billoard's Hot 100? The song is a commercial success, it was played each hour on KISS radio, and it will chart, even if it charts at place 100. So your plan is to delete it to later bring it back? Wake up.--190.43.48.38 (talk) 22:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The song has already charted in Finland. The nomination becomes moot now. — Legolas (talk2me) 05:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • And it has also charted in Ireland. And it will chart all over the world eventually. This discussion should be ended right now, it's useless to keep discussing on an official single by the greatest pop artist of the moment. And I'm not saying to keep it because of that, but because it has garnered enough attention and has already charted. End this now --Evengan (talk) 16:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: It has charted, though. And the page has been updated accordingly. Therefore, I don't see the need to even debate this now. It's an official single, it's charted, it has independent coverage from multiple sources and is being played in many countries. A bit of a pointy nomination in my opinion. (Paul237 (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep - Already an official release. Will chart in several countries in a matter of days. Has sufficient coverage.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 21:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Can we stop this discussion now? There's no reason to delete this article now. --Evengan (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (changed from redirect), clearly now notable, plenty of sources have been added since this AFD started and the single has charted (though I do believe it was right to AFD this at the time) –anemoneprojectors– 22:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawing Nomination → Yay! It finally charted!! It finally has a reason to be in this encyclopedia!!! I Help, When I Can. [12] 23:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You mad? --Evengan (talk) 23:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why would I be?? I Help, When I Can. [12] 23:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed some sarcasm. If not, then we're all okay. --Evengan (talk) 23:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it's sarcasm directed at some of the arguments in this discussion, but I'm not mad. I like the song. I Help, When I Can. [12] 23:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, some comments were wrong (for example the iTunes charts), but there's no reason to close the discussion with sarcasm which could be insulting to some editors. Just saying, not trying to judge you or start another discussion. We've had enough of that. --Evengan (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the few people who were against this article were citing the fact that it hadn't charted as being their main reason why they felt it didn't deserve its own page. Therefore, it's only natural for those of us who believe this entry is valid to confirm that the song has indeed charted. (Paul237 (talk) 06:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • It's time to close this discussion with the result of Keep, since the 'nomination' for deletion has been 'withdrawn'.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are a few other editors who indicated their preference of deletion or redirection, and they have not changed their view. Therefore, the fact that someone "withdraws" their nomination does not close a discussion. But the 7 days is up, so it will probably be closed by an uninvolved editor soon. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK. Yes, I did notice the 7 day period. Otherwise I wouldn't have said close.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:41, 15 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Edge_of_Glory&oldid=1140261963"