Talk:The Dead Dance/Archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This is an archive of past discussions about The Dead Dance. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
PROD
Please don't delete the page / article history. Thanks ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:18, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Is it Juan?: Thanks for your work here. I've added mention of Andrew Watt and Cirkut, per Billboard. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:36, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- @SNUGGUMS: Sorry to see the page was redirected instead of moved to draft space, which makes it harder to work on in the coming days. Can you say here when you think there's enough coverage so a duplicate page is not created? Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- That will most likely be after the song is released, so we should wait until that point before assessing whatever media coverage follows once it's out. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:29, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- @SNUGGUMS Other editors have already created The Dead Dance, which I've just redirected. This is exactly what I was trying to avoid. ---Another Believer (Talk) 12:38, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- That will most likely be after the song is released, so we should wait until that point before assessing whatever media coverage follows once it's out. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:29, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- @SNUGGUMS: Sorry to see the page was redirected instead of moved to draft space, which makes it harder to work on in the coming days. Can you say here when you think there's enough coverage so a duplicate page is not created? Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
update
--Another Believer (Talk) 00:45, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Draft
@CHr0m4tiko0 and Sricsi: I have redirected The Dead Dance because this page was just redirected and should be expanded instead. ---Another Believer (Talk) 12:38, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for redirecting. Just noting that the official title confirmed by Gaga and her team is “The Dead Dance”, so the draft should reflect that. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 13:43, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- @CHr0m4tiko0: Thanks!
Doing... And please feel free to help improve this page. ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:45, 29 August 2025 (UTC) - @CHr0m4tiko0 Draft:The Dead Dance ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:46, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Moved to
- @CHr0m4tiko0: Thanks!
New ref
--Another Believer (Talk) 12:37, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Draftify?
@Ritchie333: I was hoping this would end up in the draft space so we can continue to expand the article in the coming days. Is this not possible? ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:33, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- I think arguments to redirect were more persuasive given the general deletion policy (which advises only to delete the page - which drafting partially does - if absolutely necessary) and suggesting a reasonable redirect target per WP:ATD-R. If you want to create a spin-off version in draft space, you can still do that, and move it into mainspace over the redirect if you have page mover rights (or asking somebody who does it to do it for you if you don't). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Meh, seems easier to just move the page, but I'll move on to other things ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:41, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Is it Juan?: FYI, in case you're interested in revisiting this in the near future. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:52, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Meh, seems easier to just move the page, but I'll move on to other things ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:41, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333 Since multiple editors started working on The Dead Dance, which I've redirected, I created this draft space for collaboration. Hope that's ok. ---Another Believer (Talk) 12:45, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- You should have probably taken this to deletion review or at least notified SNUGGUMS and other editors who did not want to keep the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:47, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333 Oh, I'm sorry, I guess I misunderstood. Above you said I could "create a spin-off version in draft space", which is what I tried to do. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:49, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oh right, sorry I got confused, I thought you had moved the original mainspace page (as I saw a "your edit has been reverted" against the AfD closure) and assumed you were trying to unilaterally overturn the AfD. Which you weren't. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:52, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333 Thanks. In terms of next steps, does this need to be submitted via AfC? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:54, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- The recommended procedure is to submit via AfC. You could probably be bold and move it to namespace if the song is released and meets the notability criteria, as it would be highly likely that another editor would overturn the redirect without realising any of this discussion, leading to duplicate articles. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:57, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'm hoping @SNUGGUMS, CHr0m4tiko0, and Sricsi: and others will help to decide when the article should go live. I don't want to be bold if someone else is just going to take issue. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:00, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- I believe the article is already ready for mainspace. The song has been widely covered for months by multiple reliable sources, and yesterday Gaga herself officially confirmed it at the Netflix event. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'm hoping @SNUGGUMS, CHr0m4tiko0, and Sricsi: and others will help to decide when the article should go live. I don't want to be bold if someone else is just going to take issue. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:00, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- The recommended procedure is to submit via AfC. You could probably be bold and move it to namespace if the song is released and meets the notability criteria, as it would be highly likely that another editor would overturn the redirect without realising any of this discussion, leading to duplicate articles. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:57, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333 Thanks. In terms of next steps, does this need to be submitted via AfC? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:54, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oh right, sorry I got confused, I thought you had moved the original mainspace page (as I saw a "your edit has been reverted" against the AfD closure) and assumed you were trying to unilaterally overturn the AfD. Which you weren't. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:52, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333 Oh, I'm sorry, I guess I misunderstood. Above you said I could "create a spin-off version in draft space", which is what I tried to do. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:49, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- You should have probably taken this to deletion review or at least notified SNUGGUMS and other editors who did not want to keep the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:47, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
On the contrary, CHr0m4tiko0, it had only been a matter of hearsay before Gaga started promoting the track in some capacity. Having a page for the song before it even comes out would be premature when there hasn't been much beyond routine announcements, which aren't enough on their own the warrant a main space page. Another issue is that the detail given on the actual track itself doesn't exceed a cumulative paragraph and fails WP:SIGCOV. Chances are that won't change before the song comes out. Artist commentary wouldn't be enough on its own either when that's not from a source independent of the subject. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:52, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- I see your point regarding reception, and of course that section can only be expanded once the track is out. That said, I’d argue the current coverage already goes beyond routine announcements: outlets like Billboard, Variety, Deadline, Rolling Stone and Entertainment Weekly have provided secondary, independent reporting with details on background, production, and the music video. In my view this establishes notability, so the article could reasonably sit in mainspace now, with reception to be added after release. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- SNUGGUMS, do you plan to let us know when you think there's enough coverage? ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:05, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- I’ve noticed that reliably sourced content related to Gaga (for example in Mayhem (album) and Abracadabra) has sometimes been reverted or restricted, even when it appears to comply with WP:SIGCOV and other relevant policies. I think it’s important we ensure well-referenced information isn’t being excluded prematurely. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 19:12, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- At minimum wait until the song is actually out. Trying to reinstate it to mainspace now still is hasty and quite frankly would make you come off as impatient when an AFD yesterday resulted in the page being redirected. Not sure what to say on the other Wiki pages, but those Rolling Stone and Billboard links largely rely on Gaga's own comments when not just generally discussing her recent activities. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:23, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- I understand your concern, but coverage from outlets like Billboard, Variety and Rolling Stone is secondary and independent, not just routine announcements or Gaga’s own comments. In my view this already meets WP:SIGCOV, and waiting until after release isn’t required for notability if reliable sources are providing substantial reporting beforehand. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- I completely agree. This gatekeeping seems unnecessary but I'm ok waiting a few days if SNUGGUMS feels so strongly (shrug) ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:29, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- You both are glossing over the fact that when something from any publication bases their reports mostly or entirely on artist commentary, that means those specific pieces aren't independent coverage. If the Variety article you're talking about is this, then it was just a hearsay piece that suspiciously lacked transparency when just giving a flimsy attribution of unspecified "sources" for the track existing, and its actual discussion of "Dead Dance" was quite brief. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:34, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- Agree to disagree, I'll just plan to take the page live on 9/3. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:42, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- If anyone needs additional info or references, the article has already been created on Spanish Wikipedia, so there may be some useful material to draw from there as well. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 20:25, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Like ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:28, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- There are already more than 20 reliable sources from the past two months discussing the song, including Variety, Rolling Stone, and Billboard. The article provides background, artist commentary, details about the music video, and context for Wednesday. With the release just three days away, it seems reasonable for readers to have access to this information in mainspace. @SNUGGUMS, feel free to let us know whenever you consider it appropriate for publication — whether in three days, a week, or whenever you think the timing is right. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- If anyone needs additional info or references, the article has already been created on Spanish Wikipedia, so there may be some useful material to draw from there as well. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 20:25, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- Agree to disagree, I'll just plan to take the page live on 9/3. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:42, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- You both are glossing over the fact that when something from any publication bases their reports mostly or entirely on artist commentary, that means those specific pieces aren't independent coverage. If the Variety article you're talking about is this, then it was just a hearsay piece that suspiciously lacked transparency when just giving a flimsy attribution of unspecified "sources" for the track existing, and its actual discussion of "Dead Dance" was quite brief. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:34, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- I completely agree. This gatekeeping seems unnecessary but I'm ok waiting a few days if SNUGGUMS feels so strongly (shrug) ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:29, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- I understand your concern, but coverage from outlets like Billboard, Variety and Rolling Stone is secondary and independent, not just routine announcements or Gaga’s own comments. In my view this already meets WP:SIGCOV, and waiting until after release isn’t required for notability if reliable sources are providing substantial reporting beforehand. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- At minimum wait until the song is actually out. Trying to reinstate it to mainspace now still is hasty and quite frankly would make you come off as impatient when an AFD yesterday resulted in the page being redirected. Not sure what to say on the other Wiki pages, but those Rolling Stone and Billboard links largely rely on Gaga's own comments when not just generally discussing her recent activities. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:23, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- I’ve noticed that reliably sourced content related to Gaga (for example in Mayhem (album) and Abracadabra) has sometimes been reverted or restricted, even when it appears to comply with WP:SIGCOV and other relevant policies. I think it’s important we ensure well-referenced information isn’t being excluded prematurely. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 19:12, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- SNUGGUMS, do you plan to let us know when you think there's enough coverage? ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:05, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Definitely not ready before it's officially out, no matter how much you might wish otherwise, and you're blatantly continuing to ignore how the "Independent of the subject" caveat of WP:GNG notes things from "article's subject or someone affiliated with it" aren't sufficient on their own. That means anything that largely or entirely consists of commentary from Gaga/people involved with Wednesday don't actually count as independent coverage, regardless of what platform was used to publish such information. Yes, I did assess the links provided. When not primarily/solely basing reports on what involved parties say, the pieces even mentioning this by name either consist of hearsay claims or just brief passing mentions of the song itself. No, a speculative article wouldn't help establish notability either. Please be more patient. Not everything warrants a main space entry the moment it's known to be coming up. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:46, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- Most of the coverage in the article is no longer speculative. While early reporting (such as the initial Variety piece on August 4) relied on unnamed “sources”, subsequent announcements and appearances have officially confirmed the song, its release date, its music video directed by Tim Burton, and Gaga’s involvement in Wednesday. These details are well-documented in reliable outlets such as Rolling Stone, Billboard, Page Six, and Netflix’s own Tudum coverage.
- In other words, what may have started as hearsay has since been substantiated by independent, verifiable reporting. With more than 20 references already in place, the draft is grounded in concrete information rather than speculation.
- I hope the same level of effort and commitment being shown here to keep the page in draft space will also be applied to improving and developing the article once it is in mainspace. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 16:57, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- To be clear, I'm certainly not denying the song's confirmation of existence or how Gaga and Tim are working together on this. My qualm is that beyond routine announcements or what those two and other involved parties have said on "The Dead Dance", the only things with both independent AND non-speculative coverage each contain less than a cumulative paragraph so far. Let's not downplay the importance of having such depth that isn't just from someone who worked on the song and/or show. It's hard to imagine any third-party publications going deeper prior to a release where pieces could assess lyrics, vocals, genres, etc. even when not formal reviews since they wouldn't have much to discuss beyond something coming up and having a video. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:16, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- The song’s existence and release are confirmed, so the remaining question is whether current coverage is sufficient for WP:SIGCOV. That guideline does not require lengthy reviews, only reliable and independent sources that go beyond trivial mentions. This goes beyond routine announcements, and in my view it already satisfies the general notability guideline. More in-depth analysis will naturally come after release, but the foundation for notability is already established. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- I never said that the coverage had to be super lengthy (two or three paragraphs might be sufficient), but a cumulative paragraph by itself wouldn't exactly be enough to constitute WP:SIGCOV. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:15, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- I understand your point, though I’d note that WP:SIGCOV does not set a minimum length in paragraphs — it simply requires reliable, independent coverage that goes beyond trivial mentions. In that sense, I believe the draft already meets the guideline, with further depth to come naturally after the release. Hopefully once the song is out, we can all focus our energy on improving and expanding the article itself. The same effort we’ve seen here in discussing inclusion could be really valuable when it comes to developing content in mainspace, CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- You're still being too lenient. Even if no specific length is listed explicitly, I highly doubt you could find many people who agree that under a paragraph's worth of coverage would by any reasonable measure count as "significant" in depth/longer than a brief mention. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:04, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- I understand your point, though I’d note that WP:SIGCOV does not set a minimum length in paragraphs — it simply requires reliable, independent coverage that goes beyond trivial mentions. In that sense, I believe the draft already meets the guideline, with further depth to come naturally after the release. Hopefully once the song is out, we can all focus our energy on improving and expanding the article itself. The same effort we’ve seen here in discussing inclusion could be really valuable when it comes to developing content in mainspace, CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- I never said that the coverage had to be super lengthy (two or three paragraphs might be sufficient), but a cumulative paragraph by itself wouldn't exactly be enough to constitute WP:SIGCOV. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:15, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- The song’s existence and release are confirmed, so the remaining question is whether current coverage is sufficient for WP:SIGCOV. That guideline does not require lengthy reviews, only reliable and independent sources that go beyond trivial mentions. This goes beyond routine announcements, and in my view it already satisfies the general notability guideline. More in-depth analysis will naturally come after release, but the foundation for notability is already established. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- To be clear, I'm certainly not denying the song's confirmation of existence or how Gaga and Tim are working together on this. My qualm is that beyond routine announcements or what those two and other involved parties have said on "The Dead Dance", the only things with both independent AND non-speculative coverage each contain less than a cumulative paragraph so far. Let's not downplay the importance of having such depth that isn't just from someone who worked on the song and/or show. It's hard to imagine any third-party publications going deeper prior to a release where pieces could assess lyrics, vocals, genres, etc. even when not formal reviews since they wouldn't have much to discuss beyond something coming up and having a video. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:16, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
@CHr0m4tiko0: Thanks for requesting speedy deletion of The Dead Dance so this page can be moved over. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:54, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
- No problem — hopefully the deletion goes through soon so the move can happen. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
- This discussion is moot. Unless someone objects, I'll plan to archive soon. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:31, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
- I agree, it makes sense to archive this discussion now. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 01:37, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
- This discussion is moot. Unless someone objects, I'll plan to archive soon. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:31, 5 September 2025 (UTC)