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. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cabaret (Justin Timberlake song)

[edit]

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

This article fails WP:NSONGS. There are no reliable secondary sources giving significant coverage of the song independent of album reviews. Should be redirected to The 20/20 Experience – 2 of 2 as it is a plausible search term, but does not warrant a separate article and thus is a WP:CFORK. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 02:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. There are song's articles which have much smaller length than this one, there are so many sources mentioning and reviewing the song it's more than obvious that there is a stability for the article. Additionally, he performed the song on his tour for 100+ dates and the song charted in the US and South Korea, more than enough to establish the stability of the article. Please don't be ridiculous. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 10:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep – Well written – well referenced article. ShoesssS ^Talk 12:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charting is not an automatic indicator of notability, and neither are live performances. WP:NSONGS states that Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created. Outside of album reviews, it only gets brief mentions. Article length isn't the concern here, and WP:WAX isn't a very convincing argument in deletion discussions as one cannot solely determine the notability of one subject based on the notability of another. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then I am sure we have like 100+ articles like this one (including ones from your fav Perry) why don't you AfD them all? Or you was too busy stalking me until the time I finished and GANed the article and the same second you AfDit. The reasons you are giving here are totally non-sense. I am ending the discussion with you here. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 17:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would remind all editors to please assume good faith of each other. There are many articles on Wikipedia that should be deleted: their existence is not a reason to delete, or not delete, this article. This article must be judged on its own merits. If, Tomica, there are other articles you feel do not meet notability criteria, by Perry or anyone else, you are, of course, free to propose their deletion. Bondegezou (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am not an "article deleter" sorry, it's just not my thing. And the good faith is here, I only don't appreciate bad faith like above. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 17:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First of all, if you yourself don't believe that it should be deleted, why would you nominate it for deletion? It would be much more effective to start a merge discussion, instead of taking the article straight to deletion. I would like the nominator to please review what exactly a WP:CFORK is, because this is not one. This article contains a large amount of information that is not in the article of the parent album. There is coverage on the song in regards to the album, as well as the tour. You can debate whether or not the South Korean chart is relevant, but charting at #18 on the US R&B Songs is a pretty notable feat. "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." The article clearly has enough information to warrant a stand-alone article, and has grown well beyond a stub. — Status (talk · contribs) 22:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Status and Tomica. The article is reasonably detailed and, additionally, the fact that the song has charted makes me lean towards "notable" here. — Mayast (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It just barely meets notability requirements (a lot of reviews are within album reviews--although are couple aren't--and it ranked #50 on the charts, unimpressive), but I'm leaning towards keep.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:20, 5 November 2014 (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.