Talk:Renegade (Paramore song)

Capitol Records? are you kidding me? Paramore loves FBR! Renegade Monster (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I think Capitol Records is the wrong label. And it's pop punk and not power pop, doesn't matter what the source says beacause it's full of polemic and cannot be used as basis for this article. Platinblech (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --69.128.38.127 (talk) 21:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

More people may com looking for more information about his song, because it just came out not too long ago.

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... this is a song released by a very popular band (paramore) and is a very big song selling a lot of copies off of their website. it means something to paramore fans so it should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbyring96 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

And...? the single does not exist, not has been released, only leaked online and was not even officially released the studio version, Renegade Monster (talk) 20:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Nothing says that he wrote Jeremy, Taylor and Hayley. Renegade Monster (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Since when Paramore is piece of Capitol Records?. Renegade Monster (talk) 20:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Paramore just says that they will release SONGS! not singles! Renegade Monster (talk) 20:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Reason for speedy deletion not valid. Consider WP:AfD if there's a ground for deletion. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 14:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, considering the notability guideline it doesn't fulfil any of the criteria, so speedy deletion is appropriate. It's just a song, like many others. No notoriety yet. Coltsfan (talk) 15:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
People, please, read the the guideline of notability for albums, singles and songs. Speedy deletion completely justified. Coltsfan (talk) 17:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Find me the criterion that justifies it. Nyttend (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

As you are all lazy and don't want to read the guideline for notability, I'll spell it out for you:

"Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording 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. If the artist associated with the work does not have an article, or if the artist's article has already been deleted, an article about a musical recording that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant is eligible for speedy deletion under criterion A9."

There you go. This song it's not a single. This is just a song, like many others. The nobility was not justified. And as you all know, it's not a "traditional songs" so speedy deletion is appropriate. Or maybe it should be redirected to the Paramore main article. Coltsfan (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

While it's likely not notable, it does not qualify for A9 because its musician has an article. If you read A9, you'll see that the musician's name must be a redlink in order for A9 to apply. Nyttend (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

As I said, it also might be redirected to the Paramore main article. "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article". This song does not fulfil not even one of the criteria apointed by the notability guideline. It's not a single, it's not a famous song "that was not ranked on national or significant music charts, nor have won significant awards or honors nor have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups." Coltsfan (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Since that's not a speedy question, and since I'm only involved here because I was deleting or declining speedy nominations, I don't have an opinion on redirecting. Nyttend (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Redirecting article. Notability was not proven. Coltsfan (talk) 19:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)