Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dancing to the Rhythm

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 delete. -- Lear's Fool 05:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing to the Rhythm

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

Fails the requirements of WP:Notability (music) as it relates to individual songs. Limited independent reliable sources relating directly to the song. Most mentions are either trivial or blog related. Song has not come close to charting. Nor does it meet any other of the requirements for having a separate article. Most of the article data belongs and should be placed in the artist's article. Note that the ABC News reports cannot be considered as reliable sources as ABC has been heavily promoting the artist and thus is not an independent source. The other source given is a promotional site. The artist herself is of dubious notability, but I will wait for the results of the AfD on this song, before going into the subject of the artist herself. Delete. Safiel (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete utterly fails any possible notability criterion for WP:NSONGS due to lack of sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per TPH's reasons and inaneness of entire promotion by GMA and ABC in the first place, which never left that network because they're crazy to think anyone else but ABC would promote this thing. Nate • (chatter) 04:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a classical example of a novelty song. It is also very pioneering in its concept and execution. In three days, "Dancing to the Rhythm" was decided upon (as a song and as the person who will perform it), was recorded in a studio, a music video made and song launched on a truly famous program followed by millions of viewers. As for claims of chart success, songs should not be judged solely by their chart success. There are hundreds of other non-charting songs that fit some notability criterion. This is probably the first time that a song unveils in front of our eyes in just three days in a true interactive manner and pioneering fashion in which we feel we are personality participating in its launching and propagation. It is notable and relevant for these reasons given. Keep. Incidentally I have also addressed the reference issues raised by original request for non-ABC sources and now we have additional independent sources talking about the song werldwayd (talk) 05:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Which amount to a fan-written blog, a gossip blog, a PR piece and a site that has nothing but its lyrics. You lose, try again. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable song. Did not chart. Sources are inadequate.--EdwardZhao (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NSONG in a major way. Fails WP:GNG; most sources provided are promotional and lack independence. The two sources which are the most reliable and the most independent frankly disparage the song. While both do "make comparison between Rebecca Black and Lexi St. George", the comparisons are not favorable ones. Humorous to see the sources ridiculing the song and artist misused in this promotional way. BusterD (talk) 00:49, 30 July 2011 (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.