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 redirect to Rated R (Rihanna album). I'll also salt the redirect; any admin may unsalt without consulting me when/if the song charts. Tim Song (talk) 03:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rockstar 101 (rihanna song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

No charts, no covers, no awards: fails WP:NSONGS, redirect to album reverted with no edit summary. See also twice-redirected Rockstar 101. Empty Buffer (talk) 11:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Empty Buffer (talk) 11:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete this again. I don't know how to find previous discussions, but this unreleased non-single keeps coming back to haunt us. In an otherwise non-notable way, of course. There's a better version of this article (rescued from a previous redirect) brewing at User:Iluvrihanna24/Rockstar 101 anyway. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy deletion I merged three times, they didn't learned. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 17:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If it is possible also Rockstar 101 (song) and Rockstar 101. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 17:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Have more information, so I say keep, but need to be moved to Rockstar 101. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 23:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's not eligible for speedy, but certainly needs to go. Fails WP:NSONGS.—Kww(talk) 19:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this should be speedied, should not have been recreated for the zillionth time to begin with - obviously the author did it to work around the current redirect. - eo (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Single by a notable artist with a music video already out, seems notable for me. Also the article says it hits radio june 1st so it's relatively understandable that it hasn't charted yet. Also note that every other Rihanna single has an article. --Deathawk (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there have been discussions about Rockstar 101, which is the proper name as there is no dab needed, which resulted in a redirect. If and when the song charts or wins awards it is notable to have an article. At the moment fails WP:NSONGS. A sanboxed article is at User:Iluvrihanna24/Rockstar 101. Adabow (talk) 22:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the song has been mentioned in reliable sources. Just a handful of these are-

Daily Mail- [1]

MTV- [2][3]

Metro- [4]

The Huffington Post- [5]

Entertainment Weekly- [6] KingOfTheMedia (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree totally with the view above. And further that the video was released.*Fr@nkl!nG* (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there are thousands of songs with music videos, but they are not notable enough for a WP article. Music videos do not help a song to pass WP:NSONGS Adabow (talk) 01:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the song is much changed since it began, at least, more information in the music video, --Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the song is an official single, noteworthy as it is crucial in documenting rihanna's career. Some songs that have articles on Wikipedia, for example Feel Up by Grace Jones, weren't even commercially released, never charted, didn't have a music video, have no known citation by any major critic, yet are still 'crucial' (apparently according to Wikipedia's standards) while this song is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin217 (talk • contribs) 06:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Feel Up has now been redirected. Thanks for pointing it out.—Kww(talk) 14:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Rockstar 101 has an official video which premiered on VEVO, and as above has been featured in many critics' articles. It is also being released to radio in two days. What more confirmation does it need??!! However, the article should be changed to just 'Rockstar 101' as there is no other page called Rockstar 101. 82.19.248.157 (talk) 11:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Official single, release dates, music video, performed live. Alecsdaniel (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This Song Is An Official Single! So It Should Have A Page! Want To Delete A Song Thats Not A Official Single On Wikipedia? TRY BREAKIN DISHES!!!!!!!!--74.44.87.84 (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is looking like WP:SNOW, but it would be so much better to merge to Rockstar 101 which is presently a redirect either to the album or to this article, depending on who edited it last. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If we are in the unfortunate situation where this is kept, I'll do some history merging to straighten that out. It certainly is a shame that the AFD has been visited by so many people that have no apparent respect for WP:NSONGS.—Kww(talk) 23:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the album's article: Unfortunately fails WP:NSONGS, and Kww... admit your defeat! ;) Vitorvicentevalente (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and re-open when it has charted. WP:NSONGS is clear about notability criteria. Remember WP:consensus is not decided by the number of people in agreement of a particular notion it is decided by the quality and merit of the arguments put forward. Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - By the time this gets sorted out, the song will have charted in Jupiter, let alone the US! The articles (plural) were certainly created before they were viable but, since the song is going to be released next Tuesday, I suspect this whole load of debates and edit wars etc are going become mooted either by the song charting or flopping: either way it will be notable... Furthermore, the edit war over at Rockstar 101 should be brought to an end as utterly pointless, BTW. Clearly, this article should be moved over there if kept and both this and that should redirect to the album if the article is deleted. Either way, the edit war is a waste of effort and frankly embarrassing to watch --Jubilee♫clipman 23:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the song will chart soon Jagoperson (talk) 11:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as well as Wait Your Turn has an article, Rockstar 101 must have one too.--Quaveren (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: What's your logic there? Wait Your Turn passes WP:NSONGS by virtue of charting in three countries, something which this song as not accomplished.—Kww(talk) 21:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • You keep ignoring this part - 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. It passes.KingOfTheMedia (talk) 22:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't ignore it: that's a precondition. Once it does that, it then has to chart, be covered by multiple artists, or win an award.—Kww(talk) 02:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are wrong, I'm sorry; "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". KingOfTheMedia (talk) 12:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I really wish that you would take the time to analyze the guideline. It doesn't say "appropriate when" or "always appropriate when", it says "only appropriate when. It's a limiting condition.

• "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."

• I think we agree here: there has to be substantial coverage in independent sources.

• "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. Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings) is in general not notable; however, it may be notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources. 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."

• This doesn't apply to this discussion, as it is about albums.

• "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song."

• Pretty basic guidance: in general, don't write separate articles for songs, cover them in sections of larger articles.

"Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable."

• Here's the major exception: songs that have charted, won awards, or been covered by multiple artists can get articles.

• "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album."

Even if the article charted, won awards, or been covered by multiple artists, it may not deserve an article.

So, given all of that, the test for "passing WP:NSONGS" is "received coverage in multiple reliable sources" AND (charted, won an award, or been covered by multiple artists) AND "received enough coverage that we can write more than a stub". Coverage first, and then does something that qualified.—Kww(talk) 15:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that "other stuff exists" is not a valid argument against an article's deletion. haz (talk) 13:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, so here are my arguments: Keep because the song is an official single; even though it wasn't, it has a music video, so that makes it a notable song, deserving having an article; it's been promoted in TV and Radio as a single; and if so... what are the reasons to delete it?--Quaveren (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gobsmacked comment: Wait a minute, having a video "makes it a notable song"? Why do you believe that? Since when? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The song has a music video, radio add dates, and was performed live on the biggest show in the United States. The article also has a variety of third party resources. XL XR2 (talk) 23:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Rated R (Rihanna album) and salt the article until the song charts. WP:NSONGS is extremely clear: "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." — ξ^xplicit 01:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The song will be released tomorrow, and it's unlikely it's not going to appear in some charts. There are plenty of other aspects that make this song notable, as seen on the above comments. Alecsdaniel (talk) 09:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This AfD discussion will end after the release of the single, but presumably before chart data are released, and it would be a bit of a violation of IAR to delete the article on protocol, only to have to undelete it in the more-than-likely case that the track charts. The circumstances of its creation leave much to be desired, but I think it would be prudent to not see this one in black and white re. the application of WP:NSONGS. In the case that the article is kept, merge with Rockstar 101 – the article's contribution history is a bit of a clusterfuck as it stands. haz (talk) 13:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it violates WP:IAR at all. Charting is at least a week away, and there are far better versions of this article sitting in sandboxes and under redirects. Allowing articles like this to stand sets a bad precedent, and encourages editors to create articles prematurely in the future, saying things like "Rockstar 101 got kept, why can't my article on Lady Gaga's latest single be kept too?" There's nothing in this article that is exclusive, valuable, hard to write, or not already in User:Iluvrihanna24/Rockstar 101. Deleting this now sets a valuable precedent and results in no damage to the encyclopedia.—Kww(talk) 15:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I just checked Wikipedia's notability guideline, and the song section does not mention singles anywhere. Therefor it could be inferred that Wikipedia does not have a policy regarding singles: Indeed wikipedia says "Most songs are not deserving of an article" but most songs are not singlesm. so therefore it could be argued that singles could be seen as an exception --Deathawk (talk) 06:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Singles are covered in WP:NSONGS, which a shortcut to WP:Notability (music)#Albums, singles and songs Empty Buffer (talk) 10:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This song has a cover, a radio release and a music video!--Aaa16 (talk) 13:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Since this appears to be an un-winnable battle, it is best to just allow the article to exisit. It was only released yesterday. Keep the discussion open but give the song enough time to meet Wiki qualifications (2 weeks at least), if not, then delete the article. Itsbydesign (talk) 03:54, 3 June 2010 (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.