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. Consensus is for keeping despite a lack of in-depth direct coverage.Michig (talk) 12:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wish You Were Here (Avril Lavigne song)

[edit]
Wish You Were Here (Avril Lavigne song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

May have charted, but fails WP:NSONG: "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." There has been very little added to this article that does not already exist within Goodbye Lullaby's critical reception section. Stub forever--delete. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 14:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 14:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As you've said, it's not a released single ("period"). And the Hot 100 chart appears to have no verified sources (even if the sources aren't reliable to wikipedia's standards, or even a copyright infringement, I'd be satisfied with at least a photo taken of the actual Billboard magazine or SOMETHING that can prove it was even listed there.)
As it stands now, this article is only a stub of a charted song and has a bare minimum media coverage (usually only a sentence mentioning the song along with all other songs from the album). There's no coverage about the song even charting outside of blogs. Even if those two points cause the song to have even an inkling of notability, there's just not enough encyclopedic content available about this song to warrant having its own article per WP:NSONG.~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 16:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except that WP:NSONGS states "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." So even if it is true that this article will never grow beyond a stub, it should be merged to the album article, not deleted. Rlendog (talk) 00:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not "POINT"Y at all. I am not "disrupting" Wikipedia, nor am I trying to prove any point. I believe that this article does not (and cannot in the foreseeable future) have substantial information to warrant having its own article. Why have a stub when it can simply be added to Goodbye Lullaby to help improve that article? You seemed to be the only one immediately recreating this article at every turn, so I felt that this was the best way to make a final decision on whether the article stays or goes. There has been no decision that I am "arguing" or point I am trying to make. There is only your opinion and my opinion. So this puts it into open forum. Let's see what happens. That's all. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 20:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are trying to point something: "Stub forever--delete". On the other hand your argument for deletion is invalid for AFD, which is "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album". AFD are not venues for request merges, which I repeat, is your argument. I'll never understand why people like you wants to delete articles immediately if we have the ((merge to)) template. The article is searched by people and it can easily me merged an redirected to the article to avoid confusion. Delete the article history is not the solution, and you are actually are trying to violate copyrights with this poor excuse of AFD. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 21:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the wording "people like you". My reasoning for deleting over merging is that there is no real information that can be merged. The only thing worth merging would be the "critical reception" which already is a bit overflowing in the Goodbye Lullaby article. This is basically just an article that says "this song charted". No reason to take up space for such little content.
Are you forgetting that I did redirect the article? And you quickly reverted it based solely on the fact that this song charted. Further, where am I trying to violate copyrights? By posting a link solving the debate over verifiability of whether it charted in the Hot 100 or not? I think you're going a bit over the top here.~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 21:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With that said, the song has charted on the Hot 100. That gives inherited notability. The question is whether it's enough. You cannot argue that charting on the Hot 100 in two countries is notability in itself. And record companies tend to notice things like these, and this could be a single later in 2011 or 2012 (though that would be WP:CRYSTAL). We'll see. What I do know is that every single standard song on the Taylor Swift album Speak Now hit the charts very quickly upon release; each song received digital downloads on its own from people who didn't want the entire album (or heck, maybe some poor sap bought every individual song to contribute more money towards her career than by an album purchase...I have no idea). Many of those songs are not singles, and some of them do not exist in articles yet, so there is an argument to this song not being notable. I'll be interested in following this discussion. CycloneGU (talk) 20:53, 25 April 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.
More