Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Only Girl

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only Girl

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

Another case of jumping the gun - popular music artist with supposed upcoming release. Fails WP:NSONGS, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:RS. All "sources" are blogs, tweets and fan sites. Remove this info and the article is left with nothing. In a nutshell: TOO SOON. Note also that this was originally created at Only Girl (song), so that would need to be deleted as well, if no proper third-party sources can be found. - eo (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Anyone but me up for making "unreleased single" a CSD category? There's never a reason for these articles. Just nothing in them that can't be happily housed at the album or artist article.—Kww(talk) 14:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: And I just deleted a ref to one of these "reliable sources" that offered support for the fact (heh) that the song is named "One Girl". The CSD category could well be "unreleased recording", since I see quite a few albums with the same problem (if a name had leaked for Rihanna's fifth, I guarantee we'd be having the same argument about its article right now). — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The song has been confirmed by Rihanna's record label and official fansite, Radio stations are ushually reliable, if radio stations lie, they ushally get sued. Also, since it is confirmed, theres really no point since the song will be release in a week, so deleting this and then when the song comes out you gonna have to do extra work just to make the page! i reccomend you save the page --74.44.86.7 (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The most reliable here is Digital Spy, and it is not a reliable site. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 04:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, it isn't attached to an album, it is not confirmed (all stories stem from defpen radio which has suddenly popped up on the web as an official music release source *skeptism implied here*), it serves no purpose by notability because of this. Also it had not charted, not covered by other artists, no awards etc. This is once again over-zealous fans jumping the gun. This page (and all varients) need deleting. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 23:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sources are blogs. Candy o32 15:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No commercial release date. The radio release date doesn't seem to be covered by reliable sources. If it was going to be in the shops in a few days it might be different.--Michig (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I think we should just wait and see. ~ ΣПDiПG-STΛЯT (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait how long? To see what? Why should we wait? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because, WTF DUDE is only coming out in 2 days... if the song doesnt come out then, then you can delete it. WTF some of ya is hard-headed people --74.44.86.7 (talk) 23:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I can't see why some artistes have an article for every single when there's nothing particularly special about them to differentiate them. Singles like 'MacArthur Park' and 'Layla' obviously have more case as there is interesting and/or important information in them. As to this one, it's not yet released so I feel that WP:CRYSTAL applies - even if the company have released rumours about it. I see this sort of thing is promotional, trying to build up a demand. Peridon (talk) 22:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peridon's comments are absolutely correct. Every released and charting single by an artist is NOT notable for an article. Articles should only be created where there is enough reliably sourced information about the song to create a detailed page which satisfies WP:NSONGS this song DOESNT! -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 20:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for reasons already well covered. "Wait and see" is never a good reason for keeping an entry. We're going to wait until it's notable? It may never be notable. Hairhorn (talk) 12:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edits to the article demonstrate exactly why it should be deleted. I'm sensing a snow ball here. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 14:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PEOPLE LETS JUST DELETED IT... ONLY GIRL HAS BEEN SWITCHED TO CHEERS (ANOTHER SONG), SO ONLY GIRL MIGHT BE A SINGLE OR TRACK ON THE CD, BUT RIGHT NOW IT ISNT IMPORTANT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.87.251.184 (talk) 03:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SNOW, not likely to become a full fledged article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:54, 31 August 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.