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 merge to Sweet 7. (non-admin closure) TBrandley (what's up) 18:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for the Heartbreak[edit]

Thank You for the Heartbreak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Considering WP:NSONGS I don't believe this song is notable. It hasn't received extensive coverage from third party sources as the primary topic. The background section is made up of almost all information from the recording booklet whilst the critical reception comments are part of wider album reviews and could be merged to the album's page. — Lil_niquℇ 1 [talk] 13:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment, it also hasn't charted. Its not like the album's page is bulging with information, the information could easily be merged. Notice how album's like Killer Love have a section about the composition of songs. — Lil_niquℇ 1 [talk] 13:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't have to chart. That very guideline that you have cited above explicitly states that if a song has received significant coverage in multiple sources then it is an indicator of notability. It doesn't have to meet all of the criteria, just "at least one" which this does. Also, if your main concerns here are to merge the content in the album article, why on earth did you create a deletion discussion? Till 13:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have to question whether idolator.com would be considered a reliable source and the digital spy one is not significant coverage. --Michig (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry? The Digital Spy source is about "two new songs", of which was this one, and contained about six sentences of the song. How is that not significant coverage? Also, Idolator is a notable and reliable website about music-related content Till 13:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Idolator is a blog, according to our article on it, and the Digital Spy article's entire content specifically about this song is "Then there's 'Thank You For The Heartbreak', a snappy electropop number that could have slotted quite nicely onto the Change album. There's a definite 80s feel to it, but it still sounds distinctively Sugababes." That is not significant coverage by any definition. --Michig (talk) 13:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And how about the final paragraph of the source? It discusses both songs including "Heartbreak" which you have completely omitted. Per WP:GNG significant coverage doesn't need to be the main topic of the source material so your argument is invalid. Till 14:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have a poor understanding of what constitutes significant coverage. That doesn't make my argument invalid. We're clearly not going to agree on this, so let's see what other editors think. --Michig (talk) 14:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought it was stupid that you dismissed a paragraph germane to this topic without consideration, but stating that I have a poor understanding of significant coverage in retaliation is ridiculous. Clearly you need to find something more productive to do with your time other than make unnecessary statements about people's understandings and weak Afd arguments. Kthanksbye. Till 14:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being a news site doesn't automatically make it reliable and independent. The fact that one of Buzznet's major investors in Universal Music Group ("one of the first times a music company will be directly involved in developing editorial programming for a social media site, with both companies sharing in the revenue" [3]) and UMG owns Island Records, the label that the album that contains this song was released on, means we should be cautious about treating this as a reliable source. --Michig (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, generally blogs are unreliable, unless they're being written by independent professional writers. And I fail to see remotely how Digital Spy can be a reliable source, based on both the writing style, and the fact that they're far from independent of the singers, as Michig pointed out. This is all irrelevant anyway, as there's far from significant coverage. I appreciate you seem to be a Sugababes fan, but you can't allow a COI to get the better of you :) Lukeno94 (talk) 09:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only person who is disputing the reliability of Digital Spy is you, and you are incorrect because it is reliable. In fact, it is one of the most trusted websites on Wikipedia for music-related articles. Michig was talking about Idolator (the blog) as being not independent of the band. Also, if you had bothered to look below you will see that I switched to merge this article, so your accusations of me having COI is out of line and unnecessary. Till 10:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I apologize about that one, I did get the two mixed up, but I stand by my point: that's not a reliable source. And I had indeed already seen your merge vote before that comment, so I did "bother to look below". I suggest we kill this argument before one of us ends up in trouble. Lukeno94 (talk) 11:01, 21 January 2013 (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.