Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Don't Dance

From 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 no consensus. CitiCat ♫ 01:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I Don't Dance

I Don't Dance (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable High School Musical 2 album track. No sources here, all speculation - no content at all, really. Suggest delete or redirect to album page. - eo 00:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep I've added some content and sources. The song has charted as the article indicates. It is a top 40 download on two different charts despite being released very recently. The only speculative content is whether or not it will be released as an official single, and that's irrelevant now that downloading is the main way that this generation obtains music. Kinston eagle 01:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment Being released as a single is relevant; otherwise any song that is available as a digital download anywhere would be notable enough for an article. - eo 01:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The point isn't just that it is "available" as a download but that it "charted" as a download. And on two different international charts. Kinston eagle 01:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
If you're talking about iTunes or Radio Disney, those are not official charts nor are they representative of any country. - eo 01:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. That's the point they are not representative of any country because they are international showing worldwide appreciation of the song. Kinston eagle 01:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
No, they are not representative because the iTunes Store is one specific retailer, and Radio Disney is not compiled by any official measure of radio airplay outside of Radio Disney. These charts say nothing about international popularity. The song is an album track and benefitted digitally because the album (worthy of an article) was released and sold tons of copies. - eo 01:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
You're reasons for deletion are 1. It's an album track that hasn't been released as a single - Many songs from musicals are never released as singles. See for example, Consider Yourself and If I Were a Rich Man (song), besides, there is no requirement for a song to have been released as a single to be notable. 2. No sources - I've added several sources that discuss this song including the New York Times. 3. All speculation - Only one line of speculation and that can be easily removed if you object to it. 4. No content at all - at 5800 bytes, I wouldn't say that there was no content. In fact, it's currently larger than the page for the soundtrack. These are the four objections you've stated and I don't see as how you have an argument for any of them. Kinston eagle 02:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
1. I never said a song had to be a single to be notable, I was countering your argument that it was "irrelevant". 2. As you stated above, you added content to the article after I nominated it for deletion. 3. Speculation should be removed yes, but again, you added content after I nominated this article. 4. Same as #2. - eo 10:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
So, are you saying that it should not be deleted now that the content has been added? By the way, I just found out that it is the official theme song for this year's Little League World Series. I will be adding that info very soon. Kinston eagle 12:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Please don't put words in my mouth. I've responded to the points you brought up. - eo 12:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment This was added to the baseball related deletions due to the prominent use of major league players in the music video as well as the baseball related dance routine in the movie. It is also the official theme song for this year's Little League World Series.Kinston eagle 02:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment The Village Voice, the Charlotte Observer, and New York Times are trivial sources? My keep vote lacks reasoning? You vote delete for "possibly" being WP:CRYSTAL, and yet you give no instances where it even might be. Exactly which lines are predicting anything? Be specific, so we can address your concerns. Kinston eagle 09:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not that the sources per se are trivial, their mentions of the song are. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 12:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete has no reliable sources and wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Oysterguitarist 06:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment The Village Voice, the Charlotte Observer, and New York Times are not reliable sources? Kinston eagle 09:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, nothing wrong. JB82c 15:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, wow, those sources are so trivial I had great difficulty trying to wade my way through them. Just because something is 'likely' doesn't mean it is going to happen; there 'likely' will be a Tropical Storm or Hurricane named Felix this year, but there isn't an article for it. WP:ILIKEIT isn't good reasoning, everyone who has voted keep. Delete in accordance with WP:CRYSTAL.Ravenmasterq 18:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Yet another poster who claims that this article is crystal balling without showing exactly where it supposedly is. Please tell us exactly which lines in the article are predicting something and maybe we'll have a chance to address those concerns. Making vague assertions isn't helping anything. I'm not sure where all this WP:ILIKEIT talk originated, but neither I nor any of the other Keep people mentioned anything about liking the song. As a matter of fact, I don't like the song. Just because I don't like it though, doesn't mean it isn't notable. I feel that being the official theme song of a major international sporting event is enough in and of itself to make it notable. Kinston eagle 19:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, let's see. "The only speculative content is whether or not it will be released as an official single" (Kinston eagle), "It is a likely single" (Neranei (talk)), "This song most likely satisfies the WP:MUSIC criteria for songs. (Metropolitan90)". Of the keep votes, three claim likelyhood (*cough Crystal Ball cough*), two are simply assertions of agreement ('nothing wrong', 'notable'), and only one gives an argument (Irish Pearl), but it could be refuted by WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because other songs, who in that user's opinion are lesser, have articles, doesn't also mean that a song the user thinks is better should have an article as well. The article has trivial references, and has no major references dedicated to it entirely; it would be like creating a page for a minor league prospect simply because the NYT ran an article about prospects in , say, the Yankees or Red Sox organizations. It isn't specific enough of a reference.Ravenmasterq 04:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
You stated that you wanted to "Delete in accordance with WP:CRYSTAL" and yet all the crystalballing you're talking about is in the deletion discussion. The deletion discussion is not up for deletion, it is the article that is up for deletion. What is in the article up for deletion that you consider to violate WP:CRYSTAL? That was the question. In regards to the references. One of the references is entirely on the song and the video for the song: [1]. The comparison with articles on prospects isn't appropriate. Prospects "may" make the major leagues someday, whereas this song "has" been released and "has" achieved sales through downloads - enough to be a top twenty seller, and it "has" already been used as an official theme song of a major international sporting event. Kinston eagle 13:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, if your arguments are based off WP:CRYSTAL, as I previously showed (and an apology is due to Metropolitan90, I used the incorrect quote, it should have been "there is a fairly decent chance that this song might be released as a single and hit the charts") then doesn't defending the article based on WP:CRYSTAL form a logical fallacy? And didn't you say 'The only speculative content is....' which could be interpreted as 'may'? Regarding the sources, the first one is specifically focused on the Major League baseball players, the second (Greensboro New Record) has ~75 words regarding the song, the Village Voice covers it in ~45 words, 'TV Blend' has ~35 words, the Charlotte Observer uses 13 words to disparage the song, and the NYT, the most reliable source on the list, uses ~80 words in its description. So, only about ~225 words are used to describe this article in all the sources used! It doesn't seem relevant enough to deserve listing.Ravenmasterq 19:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say that the song most likely will satisfy the WP:MUSIC criteria for songs; I said that it most likely satisfies the criteria (present tense). No crystal ball is involved. The criterion it most likely satisfies is "...has been covered in sufficient independent works." --Metropolitan90 13:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, I'm not sure about the Charlotte Observer, but the New York Times and Village Voice are very reliable sources. And the fact that it is now the official theme song for this year's Little League World Series I feel makes it plenty notable. Not to mention the fact that the soundtrack charting so well already should help the article's case in the sense that being a song associated with the CD in addition to being this year's Little League World Series theme song and being mentioned in several major newspapers. I would think this song deserves an article far more so than the single "What Time Is It?" from the CD does, given that "I Don't Dance" now has notability outside just being on the CD. Irish♣Pearl 20:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. The song has now hit the Billboard Hot 100 while this AfD discussion was going on. [2] --Metropolitan90 01:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I let the Delete voters know about this on their talk pages in case they weren't watching this page anymore. That did seem to be one of the major objections to the notability of the song. Thanks. Kinston eagle 12:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not sure about this article. While the proposed wikipedia song policy does indeed state "...has been ranked on a national or significant music chart." as a guideline, I would still feel more comfortable if there was a major source specifically dedicated to the song. As we saw before, all these sources (minus the MLBPA source) only give trivial mention of the song while doing an entire article that is focused more specifically on High School Musical Two. The long list of them may look impressive, but it seems akin to the practice back in high school that would be used to pad a reference list with trivial mentions of certain information. I would like to see a larger criticism section, with more reviews from more reliable sources. I would like to see a history of the song with more production details. I'd also like to check into the reliability of 'TV Blend'. So for now, my vote remains Delete, but a few more well placed sections or primary sources focusing on the song itself would throw me to keep.Ravenmasterq 15:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak keep although precedent is to kill such songs with a long stick, I'm fine. Will (talk) 13:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Would say Weak Keep except that near the end of the article, it states that it has not yet been released as a real single, thus I propose Delete or Merge WAVY 10 20:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
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.