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. No clear consensus for deletion. Many strong arguments for keeping. How this discussion was kept open for six weeks baffles me, especially since I see no relist tags on the page history. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My Only Wish (This Year) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page should be deleted, because although it passes WP:NSONGS by charting in Denmark, it does not warranty its own article. The article at its best state has four sections (only two of which are of actual text). It is currently of GA status, but honestly does not deserve it. I mean no harm to the nominator or the reviewer, who I believe are both wonderful editors. However, this article was a mistake and there is surely no point to have an article like this. ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 02:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - satisfies the GNG. The nominator doesn't seem to have provided a compelling reason for deletion, and I fail what is to be gained from deleting a well-referenced, reasonably solid article such as this. Surely a GAR is the correct forum for concerns about its GA status?  -- Lear's Fool 03:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not only complaining about the GA status. This article might be well-referenced, but that is it. This is the strongest state that the article could get to and there just seems no point in having an article whose full potential is to be a stub. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 06:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't understand. This article is nearly 400 words long (not lengthy, but certainly not a stub), and satisfies both the general and song specific notability guidelines. What policy are you arguing it should be deleted under?  -- Lear's Fool 06:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:NSONGS might say charting is important, but it also states "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." -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 16:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly, but it doesn't say they should be deleted. A merger discussion would be fine by me, but the fact that an article is just a stub (which I don't even think is the case here) is not grounds for deletion under our deletion policy.  -- Lear's Fool 00:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• It should merged to Platinum Christmas if anything. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 03:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Then why did you nominate it for deletion?  -- Lear's Fool 14:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – So what, the song has charted, thus passing WP:NSONGS. What else does the article have, really? Credits for the song and a little bit of reception. It blows my mind that this article is a GA, when it shouldn't even have been created in the first place. It's nothing more than a well-written stub. -- status ϟ ^talk 05:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —   -- Lear's Fool 06:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —   -- Lear's Fool 06:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Aside from the liner notes and sheet music, each source's mention of the song is trivial – what's quoted in the article is everything that was relevant. A Factiva search reveals about a dozen more newspaper items in which the song is discussed in about six words as part of a much larger review of new holiday music releases. So there is coverage of the topic, but not significant coverage, thus I don't believe GNG has been satisfied. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 10:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. First of all, this is a GA. In my opinion, articles having already passed GAN should not be deleted. Next, the article is written in a comprehensive way. Thirdly, having 162,000 digital paid downloads in the United States, is enough for notablility. Last but not the least, it has charted. Jivesh • Talk2Me 14:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It might be notable, but it will never grow beyond a stub article. This is not a GA class article Jivesh. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 16:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My friend, i wish to assure you that i understand your point but why did not the reviewer consider this? Jivesh • Talk2Me 16:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I have no idea. I can't speak for Adabow, who's now retired. :( -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 19:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Due to my ties with both the nominator and defender, I will not be posting an opinion.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 16:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Your decision is respected. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 19:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete and merge chart info to parent album

• First, the article's "notability" was only based on its charting on the Billboard Holiday/Seasonal Digital Songs, which was due to strong downloads. It did not even chart on the main listings. Its charting in Denmark could have been added in the mother page.
• Second, upon review, the line Spears recorded the song in 2000, in the midst of her Oops!... I Did It Again World Tour. is not directly supported by its source.
• Third, there is an impasse. Without its having gained much notability, there's not much information about the song, not enough coverage to warrant a stand alone article. In a nut shell, this is just a beautifully written stub.
• Fourth, (with due respect to the reviewer who retired already) its GA status has no merits because first and foremost, this should have not been created as a single page. --Efe (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the song charted. Also a GA for deletion = Big WTF. There seems to be a worrisome trend that people come to think that AFD is the new GAR. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• First. There's no question that the song charted. But that's it. As cited by iPod, "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." --Efe (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Second. That being a GA is a moot. First and foremost, the article was passed against the criteria (at least some). --Efe (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Third. It might be disruptive, but I can, anyone can, delist the article from being a GA anytime. Individual assessment would do. --Efe (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Crystal Clear x3 07:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong deletion. How can this be a good article? This is one step away from stub. The good articles should be "informative" for the readers. For me, this isn't informative at all and I don't believe that it's going to be for someone else. I also think that 10 sources aren't enough for a separate article. 46.217.63.107 (talk) 00:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, the song does not fail WP:NSONGS. Plus, it has charted two years on Denmark and apperead on Billboard Holiday/Seasonal Digital Song. And the article is already a GA. - Sauloviegas (talk) 00:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Crystal Clear x3. A\/\₉3r-(0la 00:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't see eye to eye with the nominator on this issue at all. It's notable, it is a well kept article (GA Status). What is the problem? I Help, When I Can.^[12] 05:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on second thought, this article contains no information that couldn't be comfortable covered in the album article. I Help, When I Can.^[12] 05:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Platinum Christmas, the song's parent album. There appears to be no significant coverage for this song in independent reliable sources, therefore it fails WP:GNG. However, the subject is not an unreasonable search term, and WP:NSONGS notes that songs that do not rise to notability for an independent article "should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song." I !vote to redirect to the album article over the main Britney Spears article because of the song's holiday focus/content, and that it was originally released as part of the album. Given an either/or choice between keeping or deleting, I would !vote to keep per WP:NSONGS: "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article." No exact threshold is given, though the guideline goes on to say that "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged." Merging would not be appropriate per WP:UNDUE, and besides, I would suggest that the article in its current state is already "reasonably detailed" enough to be sufficiently beyond a stub.  Gongshow ^Talk 00:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 1) passes GNG, 2) Passes NSONG, 3) is a GA at the moment. While I think Spears' music is as banal as it gets, the song meets all our inclusion criteria and doesn't trigger any of our WP:NOTs. Jclemens (talk) 02:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The song charted, was reviewed, is a GA. --PlatinumFire 13:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It passes WP:NSONGS. However, I think that it's too small to be a good article. My love is love (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per our rules. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the article is notable, however its GA status should be removed. JDDJS (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Very weak keep. WP:NSONGS does not supersede the GNG, and indeed starts with "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines...". I think this article passes the GNG, but only just. The GA status is irrelevant; notability is not one of the GA criteria and, anyway, reviewers at GAN are Only Human just like the people at AfD - a decision by a reviewer should not grant a lifetime exemption from deletion processes. bobrayner (talk) 12:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Song isn't even a single and dosn't seem to have gained any real notability as it is. Its charting in one country due to downloads (and not very highly) is not reason enough to warrant an entire article.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 22:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.It seems that some phrases were deleted the article. When translated it with other users of Wikipedia in Spanish were there, not now. This is the version to be translated for it to become "artículo bueno" (good article) in wiki.es. I wonder why some phrases were deleted and a reference. The song is referenced with reliable sources and not see the point to erase. I can not write well in English.--Flores,Alberto (talk) 19:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If you delist its GA status, we can talk. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.