Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/She Loves Me Not (song)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] She Loves Me Not (song)

She Loves Me Not (song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Fails notability criteria. Due to an easy merge it now offers no more information than the main article, essentially making it a redundant content fork. Seraphim Whipp 11:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Has charted in several countries. As for the content being redundant with that of the album article, that could (conceivably) be fixed. It doesn't mean the song is any less notable.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Note. You might want to mention in the article that it's being nominated for deletion. This template is handy for this purpose. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Lol, I see you did that already, but some clown had removed it. It's been restored.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Chart position could be easily added to the album article though... I'm not sure there really is enough information about this particular song to make it stand up on its own. Even if we could find a paragraph to write about it, that info would work quite well in an album article. Seraphim Whipp 23:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Well no it doesn't really. Also, simply because it charted, doesn't mean we need to have an article about it. Information such as "This song charted and reached position _" can be added to the album article with ease.
The conditions from WP:MUSIC are these *:
  1. ...has been covered in sufficient independent works. Fail
  2. ...has been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups. Fail
  3. ...has been ranked on a national or significant music chart. Pass
  4. ...has been recognized by journalists, biographers, and/or other respected cultural critics as being significant to a noteworthy group's repertoire. Fail
  5. ...has won a significant award or honor. Fail

*(I hope no one objects to me adding this info. I know page dumping isn't great but I figured this was a proportionately small amount of text and was needed for clarity in my argument. A simple page link wouldn't really have done it)

Seraphim Whipp 10:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment on Comment. and the first line was: "A song is probably notable if it meets one or more of the following standards". Meaning it was probably enough to pass on one of the criteria... BTW, I'm neutral.Greswik 13:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Has been charted in rock charts, and also although that does not seem to be very much a factor here, but the song was used for NHL 2003.--JForget 23:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • General comment. This stuff can all so easily be added to the album article. I just don't see why this needs it's own song article. Can anyone give me a reason why the info suggested should not be added to the main album article? I'm sincerely not asking that to be rude, I simply can't understand. Seraphim Whipp 08:37, 11 September 2007 (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.