Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr Wannabe (song)

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. ✗plicit 12:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Wannabe (song)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Not notable.

pro forma rationale

This song is not a notable subject, which refers to Wikipedia's concept of "notability" as a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. According to Wikipedia's deletion policy, an article whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline may be deleted (see WP:DELREASON#8). It is not notable because it has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and multiple such sources are generally expected (see WP:GNG; my WP:BEFORE did not reveal anything), it has not been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts, it has not won one or more significant awards or honors, such as a Grammy etc., and it has not been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups (see WP:NSONG). Editing or incubating can not compensate for the present lack of notability, and there is no indication that this could eventually prove to be a notable topic. Merging is inappropriate because no article would benefit from the addition of any of this content, which is not adequately sourced, using reliable sources, and redirection is also inappropriate because there is no suitable target to redirect to, since Zedned as a subject of encyclopedic coverage also fails notability criteria, and that article's AfD is progressing towards a consenus to delete.

Noting that WP:A9 doesn't apply, but it will apply again soon. (edit of 16:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC): it does apply now) See the past A9-deletion

Blanking-and-redirecting could have been a good idea, but editors may want to consider if all Zedned titles should be salted. Attention should be drawn to the creator of these articles. Zedned was recreated once after being draftified without leaving a redirect, and this has been recreated after the abovementioned speedy deletion. —Alalch E. 12:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Internet, and England. —Alalch E. 12:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The musician's article has been deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zedned. My initial assessment is that if he's not notable then neither are his songs. But still, this song has received no reliable media coverage or pro reviews either, and is just a self-released track on the usual upload services. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and agreed there appears to be an issue with the (likely COI) promotional articles being created by this editor. Not averse to salt or similar. ResonantDis_tortion 18:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: song has no reliable coverage and the entire article remains unsourced; I'm fine with salting if it's necessary. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 03:22, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Unsourced article that doesn't have any reliable sources or reviews. The article should also be speedily deleted since the musicians themselves doesn't have an article. Clearly fails WP:NSONG. Toadette ^{(Happy holiday!)} 08:44, 20 December 2023 (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.