Talk:It's My Own Cheating Heart That Makes Me Cry

Notability
What the hell... this article is a joke. You'd think this actually was a popular, enduring hit... it charted nowhere and I've certainly not heard it at any weddings. Surely the work of the band themselves? Either that of sycophantic losers who are part of the "scene". Look at the multitude of article sections for crying out loud:

1 Origins and recording 2 Musical and lyrical content 3 Formats and track listings 4 Critical reception 5 Personnel and credits

Now let's take an enduring, popular hit single which people know, like Prince's "Kiss". This utterly unknown "Glasvegas" song has a more expansive Wikipedia article than "Kiss"!!!!! Utterly laughable. Will someone please get rid of this article - nobody knows the song and even worse, nobody knows the band. Maybe you'll be famous oneday kids, you aren't now. 79.71.133.147 (talk) 09:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

why take it out on this page if the page for Prince's Kiss isn't as good as you'd like? Wikipedia is not a compendium of music that meets your approval. Scatterkeir (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You've missed the point entirely. I don't care for Prince - the point is that this dire, unknown song has a Wiki, and an expansive one at that. Why? It charted nowhere. This article is unnecessary and is likely to have been written by a friend or the band themselves, hunting imaginary fame. KorjokManno (talk) 02:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Multiple reliable sources (NME, Q) mean the article meets the general notability guideline. --JD554 (talk) 08:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree, this article should be deleted immediately, i cannot see why a single, which did not chart anywhere, and didn't recieve much airplay, have a wiki article. I am currently expanding several Suede songs, yet none of them are anywhere near as detailed as this, however, every Suede song did actually chart. A good example is to look at a song like Drain You and compare it to this. This should be deleted.PhilOakey (talk) 18:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You're complaining the article is too detailed? Please see my previous comment directly above, the article meets Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. --JD554 (talk) 06:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

SONG DID NOT CHART ANYWHERE, SONG IS PISH, REMOVE IT NOW
Nominate it for deletion then. I don't think you'll succeed though. --JD554 (talk) 09:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Musical and lyrical content, - Relevance and possible deletion of article
Who keeps putting in "Musical and lyrical content", because it is irrelevant, for this type of song and for other Glasvegas songs, it would be in the best interests to delete this article, the reason i say this is because i looked at The Charlatans article and noticed that 22 of their charted singles don't even have articles, there is prejudice in wiki, which i hate. You lot will say, "what are you talking about Rab? This is a shame as you seem to be doing good work on other articles", yes thats true, but, i'm a fair person, and i believe in equality and fairness, what goes around comes around. Delete this article, or at least, don't ever put "Musical and lyrical content" sections into this and any other Glasvegas article, because quite clearly the powers at be don't know how to administrate Wikipedia, which they claim to do so with high regard, pride and passion.RabAllan (talk) 10:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You could always just never look at Wikipedia again. bridies (talk) 13:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)