Deletion of Psychosocial (song)

Comment: I know Mdsummermsw's labeling this article an AfD for formality standards, because he's done it to some other singles I've been recently looking at. Anyways, for one thing Blackngold29 is right about the future single template. There is no way it was created with the sole purpose that every single "charts, therefore asserting its notability," which is basically one main requirement of  #SONGS, because not every single charts, or is even released to radio stations. Anyways, I said it before but I'll say it again since AfDs are going around like hot cakes, it's just a little odd because I can't tell you how many articles there are for singles that didn't chart, or did but have absolutely no mention of chart position. True, most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, but I believe songs that are uniquely sold as singles separate from the collective whole are, in fact, notable. #SONGS doesn't even cover the notability of Single (music)|singles, it covers the notability songs
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:MUSIC)

Comment: In context, the three full sentances of #SONGS, to me, mean: #1: Most songs are not notable. #2: Here are some that probably are notable. #3: But if there isn't enough material, merge anyway
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:MUSIC)

Comment: a confirmed single from a highly notable band. This is verified so  does not apply
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: This is a non-notable article and it can be recreated (if need be) after the release, if it falls under the notability guidelines of  and only then
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:MUSIC)

Comment: mdash; there are a http://news.google.ca/news?hl=en&q=Psychosocial%20single%20Slipknot&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn number of |reliable sources which give significant coverage to this single.  It easily passes the |general notability guidelines for Wikipedia, and given that it is a single by a major band, there is little reasonable doubt that it will chart.  Wikipedia may not be a crystal ball, but the language on  is ''inclusive'' rather than exclusive &mdash; editors arguing that it fails to meet those guidelines because it has not charted are missing the point, and being rather bloody-minded about it to boot &mdash; to wit "A separate article ''is only appropriate'' when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article".  This easily meets that standard.  All songs which meet the specific guidelines are notable; some notable songs may not meet those guidelines &mdash; for example, why do we have a {{tl|future single}} template if not for this exact reason?  You don't even have to |ignore any rules to keep this song &mdash; it already meets the guidelines for inclusion, and only a narrow and incorrect reading of guidelines could possibly claim it is not notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:N||WP:MUSIC||WP:IAR)

Comment: We can't predict notability of any individual songs.  Jasca, I would encourage you to read  in entirety - your paragraph hits about three or four arguments in there. As for whether it's a correct assessment, that's why we're here in AFD, to see if there is correctness in the suggestion that it's not notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:AADD)

Comment: as . There just isn't a guarantee that this single will chart. Bands that sell millions of records still have singles tank sometimes
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: Yes, it's a Single (music)|single. Like that article says, a single is a song. How do we know if a song is notable? #SONGS. How do we know if a song ''will be'' notable? |We don't
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:MUSIC||WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: per nom and . There is nothing notable about it. Merge it into the artists page if you like but until the song (single?) charts it is not worthy of an entry in an encyclopedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:MUSIC)

Comment: per . Wait until there are more sources and/or until it gets at least halfway up the charts
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: Single (music) "''In the record industry, a single is a song usually extracted from a current or upcoming album to promote the album.''" Album "''...tracks released separately as commercial singles''". iTunes "Single of the Week"? It's a song. We can, I guess, agree that  should have something to say. If singles are not songs, which section applies? Certainly not "musicians and ensembles", "composers and lyricists" or "Others". If you want to say singles is are "Albums", I think you'll have an uphill battle. That leaves either "Songs" or  forgot that singles are so common. We're also left with the peculiar notion the singles, often said to be "off of" or "from" certain albums are something other than the songs. Unless you have some compelling argument that a single is not a song, I'm left with simply agreeing to disagree
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:MUSIC)

Comment: I think you fail to see my point.  This article is not notable as a song, no.  But technically, it shouldn't be about a song, it's about a single.  Singles are albums in themselves, in a sense of speaking.  They have their own jewel case, CD, booklet, track listing, etc, etc.  This article should not focus on a song, but on a single, which, in theory, makes #SONGS an invalid rule to apply to this article, making it notable.  Do you see what I'm saying
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:MUSIC)