Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crying Lightning

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 Humbug (album). \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crying Lightning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Violates WP:CRYSTAL mhking (talk) 01:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per WP:CRYSTAL. -WarthogDemon 02:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Humbug (album). THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 03:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to album article as described above; no evidence this is a notable single as defined by WP:MUSIC. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Absolute Keep. It's confirmed, and the first single by a major band on their new album. There's artwork, release dates, and forthcoming b-sides. As per: http://arcticmonkeys.com/news.php?id=314 User:rexplosion —Preceding undated comment added 05:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Absolute Redirect as a plausible search term. Just because it is confirmed doesn't automatically make it notable.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Klat" 10:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Mate, this will chart top 10 in the UK charts, and is by one of the biggest British bands around. If this is not deemed notable, then Wikipedia may as well delete 80% of articles. Again, VERY VERY VERY STRONG KEEP. --Rexplosion (talk) 11:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note The above is a double vote, so has been struck out. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 14:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Rexpolsion, "this will chart top 10 in the UK charts"? How do you even know this? I'm a big Arctic Monkeys fan myself, but what you just said violates WP:CRYSTAL. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Comment. Well, yeah, but if this article isn't notable then Wikipedia should cull 80% of articles. Do you want me to find 30 less notable articles than this? I could, in 5 minutes. Rexplosion (talk) 01:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason. -WarthogDemon 01:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:CRYSTAL. And user:Rexplosion, if you want to nominate those 30 less notable articles, I'll probably vote delete for them too. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Delete it then. It'll be back Monday anyway, after it is debuted. --Rexplosion (talk) 03:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Also, Warthog, I direct you to the Star Trek argument on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This comes down to notability. And it is clearly notable. --Rexplosion (talk) 03:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, that page has unfortunately changed too much from its original intent. The basic arguement that "Other articles exist at Wikipedia which violate the guidelines, so this one should to" is always an invalid arguement. However, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS was never intended to be equivalent to inherent notibility; that is the concept that in very limited cases, some class of subjects are considered inclusion worthy even if references are limited. High schools, professional atheletes in major sports, Fortune 500 companies, state and national legislators, are all generally considered "inherently notable" even if some individual examples don't appear at first glance to meet the general notability criteria. However, this idea is ONLY applied in these limited cases. Individual songs on record albums are NOT among this limited set of "inherently notable" topics, however, and must abide strictly by WP:N and WP:MUSIC. Which is why the original meaning of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies here; finding random other articles which have no bearing on this arguement at hand is not terribly helpful here. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So you would have Season 8 of a Star Trek series up before Season 7 barely begins? -WarthogDemon 04:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Is it just me, or have we gone way off-topic? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 07:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Despite being confirmed by the band per Rexplosion's link to their official website. I still think it's a little too soon to make an article for this song. There's a few Google news links about the announcement of the single, but that's pretty much it. I'd wait until its radio premiere or we get a tracklisting for the single (ie the b-sides. Most Arctics singles have at least two or three) before making an arcticle. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Hate to push the issue, because it's really not important given that it will have an article, either post-airplay or post-release. But it complies with WP:CRYSTAL. Anyone who knows the music scene and the Arceys' chart history will know, as the first single off a new album, it is "almost certain" to chart, probably in the top 10. They are one of the biggest bands in the UK, and this is pretty much accepted. There will be more information in the coming days and weeks about it so I think that the only reason that you could have for deleting this article would be for not enough information about it, with regards to things like music videos, tracklistings, and anecdotal evidence behind the history of the song. --Rexplosion (talk) 11:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think you really understand WP:CRYSTAL. "Anyone who knows the music scene..."? Who is "anyone"? Information like that has to be sourced. And you can't guarantee that a single is going to chart, even if that's what ends up happening. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would keep it for now as it is and then add more to the article as information becomes available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.221.196 (talk) 00:59, 6 July 2009 (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.