Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dangerous (Cascada 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

=[[Dangerous (Cascada song)]]=

:{{la|Dangerous (Cascada song)}} ([{{fullurl:Dangerous (Cascada song)|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dangerous (Cascada song)}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

There are no sources saying that this song will be the next single. The article is built completely on original research with statements such as ""Dangerous" has been confirmed as the next single because, as seen in the new advert for Evacuate The Dancefloor, Natalie is seen obviously singing the lyrics to "Dangerous"". This advertisement is for the album and there is nothing to prove that the order in which the songs are played will be the order in which singles will be released. This is a clear-cut, original research article with no reliable sources. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete Violation of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, particularly section 2 of the article: "Individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, pre-assigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics, if only generic information is known about the item." This article is completely built on speculation. I have seen the advertisement and there is no way to tell what the next single will be. The television commercial is solely for advertisement of the album. No announcements have been made about the next single or singles, nor are there any reliable sources to support the article's contents. --Go1die (talk) 03:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NSONG. Even if the article could satisfy the former, the latter would still compel deletion: "[m]ost songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article.... Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." That settles it for me. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete as has already been said. no confirmation that this is a single. delete the page with a view of reviving it if reliable confirmation surfaces Mister sparky (talk) 23:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs & 20px. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 09:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, let's wait until official and reliable news are released. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 16:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

: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.