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The result was Keep: withdrawn by nom. Rodhullandemu 17:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ask for More[edit]

Ask for More (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Almost all unsourced and lacks notability. It has not charted, no music video, no critical analysis. The music itself is not discussed, only the pepsi aspect. — Realist² 19:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC) Article is now verified by several third party sources, no longer a need for deletion, notability has been established, albeit not in terms of the actual music. — Realist² 17:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Qucik google check confirms the facts. I added a reference. More exist. Notability is in place: work of a wildly notable person. `'Míkka>t 19:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You added a fan site as a source, I had to revert you, please don't use fan sites or blogs. Cheers. — Realist² 19:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim that it is not notable rests on the fact that information regarding its release oustide of fansites is difficult to source, especially since the single was released in the late 90's before the popularity of the internet. However, the each and every release of this rare promo item has been sourced complete with reference numbers, and the item even has its own custom cover. It is definitely notable especially when the main biography of the singer in question does mention her work with Pepsi. Reqluce (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the info cannot be sourced by reliable third party sources then the info should be removed. We don't report the truth, we report what is verifiable. — Realist² 19:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As previously mentioned and currently proven on the article, all releases of the song are sourced by a 3rd party. "We don't report the truth, we report what is verifable". Report it then.Reqluce (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Track lists are not enough to warrant an article. The other info needs sourcing from a reliable place. Otherwise it does not fall within the Music criteria. — Realist² 19:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently one source other than the tracklist on the article. But obviously it would be so much easier to slap citation requests and nominate articles for deletion as opposed to looking for 3rd party sources. Doesn't really matter when its not your own article or interest now does it. Oh wait, I guess that's not "verifiable" either. Reqluce (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't breach WP:NPA, you do it enough already, stop. I appreciate you created this article but there is no need for that tone. — Realist² 19:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What. Ever.Reqluce (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• While Reqluce didn't say it in a very polite way, he's got a point. Your nomination does not explain why you consider the entry non-notable, even though it should. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hope that adds some detail. — Realist² 20:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Well now that I have sorted the "lack of sources", the only reason why this article is nominated for deletion is because Realist2 feels it is "not notable", even though the whole basis of his nomination falls on the "lack of sources". Editor Míkka has already stated "Notability is in place: work of a wildly notable person." and fellow Editor MacGyverMagic concurs. That's 3 against 1 to KEEP this article. Reqluce (talk) 20:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfD's last 5 days usually and Mgm has not expressed an opinion other than my intro needed more detail. — Realist² 20:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which part of " While Reqluce didn't say it in a very polite way, he's got a point" does not mean that the user Mgm agrees that my point that the article IS notable? Reqluce (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • He/she sais "Your nomination does not explain why you consider the entry non-notable" and then I expanding the intro per his/her suggestion. — Realist² 21:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looks like selective reading. Mgm says " While Reqluce didn't say it in a very polite way, he's got a point" BEFORE''' "Your nomination does not explain why you consider the entry non-notable". It is painfully obvious that Mgm agrees with my point that the article IS notable, and anyone who can read the whole page in English can see that.Reqluce (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• When I said he has a point, I referred to: "Your claim that it is not notable rests on the fact that information regarding its release oustide of fansites is difficult to source". It might not have been completely clear, but I indeed wanted Realist2 to expand on their reasoning before I made a judgement on the nomination's merit. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• In response to "it has not charted" : The single was released as PROMOTIONAL record, with no commercial pressing, and therefore not eligible to chart. Back in the 1990s, there was no airplay or digital download chart, but it is still part of Jackson's work.

In reponse to "no music video" : The song was recorded as part of an ADVERTISEMENT, with the video available on YouTube ^[1] It was never released as a full length music video, but it is still part of Jackson's work. In response to "no critical analysis" : Again this was a PROMOTIONAL record designed for as part of an AD CAMPAIGN. Promo records such as these are NOT given to Music Journalists or reviewed as part of their work. Just because there are no "verifiable" links to "critical analysis" does not mean this piece of work by an internationally known artist is not notable.Reqluce (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • And notability is not inherent either. Just because someone very famous made i that does not mean it is notable. — Realist² 21:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still its 3 who want to KEEP the article and just 1 who wants it deleted.Reqluce (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Articles are not deleted or kept via a majority vote, but are deleted if there is a rough consensus by the users to do so. Read WP:DEL. MuZemike (talk) 06:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think we can apply WP:MUSIC here quite easily. I quote:

1. "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The article meets this. Several reliable independant sources are included.
2. "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." Janet Jackson is considered notable and I would consider her to be sufficiently notable to include all her work as per a similar guideline in WP:BK.
3. "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." (underline mine) This is a general guideline which specifically mentions exceptions. This article can be considered an exception due to the sources included.
4. "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." The majority of the article is something other than tracklisting information, so this part of the guideline doesn't apply. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, in full knowledge that my position might be given less weight as an anonymous editor. The arguments detailed by Mgm above are strong and uncontestable, as they materialize the claim of notability of this recording through WP:MUSIC. There is, however, an aspect that has not been mentioned until now, and that is used by the submitter as further argument towards deletion. I quote: "The music itself is not discussed, only the pepsi (sic) aspect." Far from an argument in favor of deletion, this is a strong reason to keep it, which joins those made before by other editors. Ask for More was a highly notable commercial campaign for a major company that would continue for years, and which eventually recruited artists as Robbie Williams and Britney Spears, among others. This music piece and its associated recording were its cornerstone and launching act, aired in at least dozens of countries throughout four continents. Hence, it also belongs in Category:Advertising campaigns, as part of a highly successful, international commercial campaign for one of the leading and best known soft drink producing companies in the world. 84.123.128.24 (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2008 (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.