Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Best of Me (Christina Aguilera song)


 * 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 Lotus (Christina Aguilera album). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Best of Me (Christina Aguilera song)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Clearly the author has done his best at writing this article. But if this is all that can be said about "Best of Me" (minus the Background section, which does not have direct relevance to the song), we probably do not need this article. The information -- of which there isn't a substantial amount -- is all based on sources that focus on the album as a whole, so a merge is probably the best solution. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  23:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Don't try and make it sound like you are trying to pay a compliment and then AFD this article, Wikipedian Penguin. For a non-single, quite a lot of reviewers spoke about the song and made comparisons to others. And don't give me that crap about focus on the album. 90% of all Critical reception sections are composed of song reviews within an album review. An album review reviews the songs on the album. And it is contradictory to nominate for deletion and then say it should be merged. Why not place merge tags and allow for a discussion on the talk page? It passes notability guidelines at GNG. —  AARON  &bull; TALK   01:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't help it if you take my nomination personally. We have two mediocre-length paragraphs of information that is actually directly related to the song. That is not passing WP:GNG. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  01:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It does pass GNG. —  AARON  &bull; TALK   11:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Explain how so. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  11:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Because it passes each bullet point. Charting, or rather chart position, isn't an issue here. It's not a full requirement. —  AARON  &bull; TALK   16:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It did not receive significant coverage, as I'd implied above and Till has stressed below. There's little information to warrant this article. True, charting is only an indication that the topic may possibly be notable because of its commercial success, but not always, as is the case with "Best of Me". — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  17:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge. The song lacks the significant coverage that is required for a standalone article. Let's take a look at the sources shall we.
 * No mention of "Best of Me"
 * No mention of "Best of Me"
 * No mention of "Best of Me"
 * No mention of "Best of Me"
 * No mention of "Best of Me"
 * No mention of "Best of Me"
 * Album liner notes is a primary source → not indepdendent of the song
 * Gets a tiny paragraph (like all the other songs) as part of the album. No significant coverage.
 * Gets 2 lines as part of coverage of the album. No significant coverage.
 * Music retailer → no coverage at all
 * Contains three trivial sentences as part of the album review. No significant coverage.
 * Contains three trivial sentences as part of the album review. No significant coverage. And "Popcrush" could hardly be considered a reliable source.
 * Gets two trivial sentences as part of the album review. No significant coverage.
 * Gets two trivial sentences as part of the album review. No significant coverage.
 * Gets one trivial sentence as part of the album review. No significant coverage.
 * Merely verifies a mediocre chart position, no coverage at all. Till  01:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What position a song charts at has nothing to do with it. No one said anything when "Dance for You" was created and had only charted at 200 on one chart did they. Well in that case Till, all critical reception sections are trivial, as they are all made up of album reviews. An album review reviews the songs. Think about it. —  AARON  &bull; TALK   11:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Aaron, may I request you not to take "Dance for You" as an example here as it is a very unsuitable choice to defend BOM. My point is only that DFY had a music video and the article was created only after the music video was released, in fact nearly a month after its release. This was how the article stood back then. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 11:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Regardless, the chart position does not address the issue of a lack of 'significant coverage from third party sources. Till  12:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep . Merges should be proposed on article talk pages, not at AfD. --Michig (talk) 08:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'm not completely sure if a merge would be the best solution. I'm also considering redirecting as an option because there's hardly any information to merge. Much of the info is already covered in the Lotus critical response section. The background section is not even relevant to the song, so we can't move that. But if bringing this up at the talk page is still the best thing to do, we can withdraw this AfD. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  10:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So you listen to someone else and not me then, Wikipedian Penguin, even though I said this above and you ignored it. —  AARON  &bull; TALK   11:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I opened this discussion to see what would be the best solution; my guess was merge, but I wasn't sure. I can understand your frustration since a few of your contributions have been brought to question, but please stay focused on the matter and stop thinking I use double standards. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  11:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, you opened this AFD in order to have the article deleted. That is the aim of your action. This is not merely a discussion to talk about your concern. Don't try and pass it off as that, because it certainly isn't washing with me. If you had of wanted to discuss this, you could have posted on my user talk or the talk page of the article. You're obviously not the editor I thought you were. —  AARON  &bull; TALK   16:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Aaron--Calvin? Please tone it down a bit and stop taking this personally, please. I don't think Penguin did anything wrong by the letter of the law, though proposing "merge" in an AfD is a bit of a clunker, and there is no reason to let this get out of hand. Michig, I agree with your point, certainly on principle, but IMO we might as well let this run and if "merge" is the outcome, so be it. Your advice is, as always, appreciated. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate both Michig's and Drmies' input on this. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  19:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. No objection to letting this run its course. --Michig (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And I would go for Merge to Lotus (Christina Aguilera album) as the content about this song can easily be summarized there. --Michig (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge (with redirect to Lotus). I don't see that this song has independent notability outside of Lotus, and don't believe that it qualifies under WP:NSONG. The background section is almost entirely about the album (and quite similar to the one for the album and those in many of the songs from it), and as noted by Till, none of the sources give significant coverage of the song. As its charting amounts to one week's sales in South Korea of 1,840 digital downloads the week the album dropped (16 of 17 songs from the deluxe edition charted, 15 only in that week, and this was 14th at number 172), I don't believe it demonstrates notability. The content and notability issues are very similar to another song from Lotus, "Cease Fire", which I had nominated last week for AfD here; the discussion there, notably by the people who weren't involved in the article—Gongshow, Till, and Carabinieri—has helped inform my opinion. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Partial merge to Lotus (Christina Aguilera album) - lack of in-depth coverage in reliable sources, and there's no indication of importance or notability apart from the album: doesn't meet WP:NSONG. Since it's discussed by critics in the context of the album, and there's not thousands of words to be said about it, merge. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge (slight/as desired) into the Lotus page. If the most any publication can say about a song is (1) brief, and (2) contained in an album (p)review, I'm inclined to think the album page is an appropriate place to contain info on such material; i.e., it does not appear to meet WP:GNG (in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources) or WP:NSONGS.  Gong   show  21:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - If the outcome is merge, I will need time to merge the info to Lotus. —  AARON  &bull; TALK   21:54, 22 February 2013 (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.