Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colorblind (Leona Lewis 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   delete. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect to an appropriate target page. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Colorblind (Leona Lewis song)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This song does not appear to be notable outside of its inclusion in the EP Hurt: The EP. Most of the information in this article is about that EP, not about this song (including chart positions). Therefore the Leona Lewis version is no more notable than the original Counting Crows version, which was just an album track. – anemone projectors – 16:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - How is this not notable? The Acoustic version was released as a promotional song from Glassheart to download via Amazon, so it is notable outside of Hurt: The EP. That's what a promotional song is. This is about Leona's version, doesn't matter that it was simply an album track on Counting Crows album. That's like saying "I Will Be should be deleted because it's a cover of Avril Lavigne's version, for which no information is known and never charted. This is ridiculous. AARON &bull; TALK   17:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "I Will Be" by Leona Lewis was a single and charted separate from its album. "Colorblind" has not charted separate from the EP or album, because promotional singles do not chart. There is very little information about the song itself in the article. It is basically a duplicate of the article Hurt: The EP. – anemone projectors – 17:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, so remove the chart section; do you realise that Hurt: The EP charted on the UK Singles Chart don't you? So "Hurt", "Iris" and "Colorblind" all charted as one. Do you also realise that promotional songs are free, and therefore cannot chart? Hence why the Acoustic version, which is on Glassheart, has not charted. AARON &bull; TALK   17:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes of course I realise that. But we don't make articles for B-sides just because the single it was on charted, or album tracks just because the album charted. Same thing here. Being a promotional single doesn't make it notable. – anemone projectors – 17:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course promotional singles are notable. They raise awareness for the album. Why do you think a promotional single template for the info box exists?? AARON &bull; TALK   17:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Because sometimes promotional singles are notable songs. Just not in this case. I do think it's nice when other songs are notable even though they weren't released as (official) singles, but I'm currently looking at some examples on Wikipedia of album tracks and promotional singles with articles, and the ones I'm looking at all charted somewhere in the world. "Colorblind" has not charted, just the EP it appeared on. – anemone projectors – 17:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ... Because the Acoustic version cannot chart! It was free! AARON &bull; TALK   17:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hence it's not notable. – anemone projectors – 17:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It is. Why do you think a promotional template exists? AARON &bull; TALK   17:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I already answered that question. – anemone projectors – 08:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable and there's enough coverage. I suggest maybe two more lines for critical reception though.--TV (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - As it stands more or less all the information is just duplicated from the Hurt: The EP article. The charts section is misleading to me as it was not Colorblind that reached those positions, it would be akin to making an article for an album track then listing all the positions the album charted at. Sanders11 (talk) 18:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator's and Sanders' comments above. At the moment, the article contains information on the EP and not the track and the chart section lists the peak of the EP, not the track. 五代  (talk) 13:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It talks about why she decided to record this song. AARON &bull; TALK   14:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's about why she recorded it for the EP, which is better mentioned in the EP's article. It's already there, and in fact, there isn't one part of this article that isn't already covered in that one. – anemone  projectors – 14:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the reason why she decided to record Colorblind. AARON &bull; TALK   15:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but she recorded it for the EP, and that's talked about in the EP's article. That doesn't make it notable separate from the EP, same as any B-side or album track. – anemone projectors – 15:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Her reason for recording the song is the same, acoustic or not. AARON &bull; TALK   15:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry I don't see what point you're trying to make. – anemone projectors – 15:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well it's pretty simple. There is a reason why she chose to record the song, it's in EP article. What I'm saying is that the reason she chose to record an acoustic version would be the same reason she recorded it year ago for the EP. AARON &bull; TALK   15:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes so if the reason is the same, why does it require a separate article? Surely the reason goes in the EP article and the album article. The fact that she recorded two versions doesn't add to the notability of the song. – anemone projectors – 15:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Because it was released as a promotional single and there is information about it. AARON &bull; TALK   15:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, there appears to be some confusion about the Hurt: The EP. Lewis promoted the song "Hurt" and it came packaged as an extended play. It was not released in addition to Hurt: The EP. The EP is classfied by technical definition as a single because it is less than 5 tracks long and has a shorter length than 25 minutes. Per the Official Charts Company this means that the EP is treated as a single. Therefore individual songs from that EP would in most cases not qualify and be notable for a separate/individual article. The information about the song is taken from coverage about the EP. The charts included are for the EP as a whole. Individual songs from the EP were not eligable to chart because the entire EP charted as a single body of work on the UK Singles Chart. Thus the chart coverage is relevant as to why the EP should have its own article. The acoustic version was recorded as part of the acoustic recordings for the deluxe edition, it really adds nothing to the original conditions as to whether "Colorblind" is notable for its own article. If anything it was an after thought and nothing to do with the original recording. Finally the 'promotional release' was as a free download for a period of two weeks from Amazon in the UK, it hardly the most notable thing in the world. It is no longer available and so it would be difficult to prove that it actually happened. Plus it doesn't actually make a difference to the notability of the song. I agree with anemone on this one, she recorded two versions, "so what?" &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  16:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I didn't know the acoustic version was a free download until it was too late, and found it as a paid download (still a separate release from any EP or album, as was the free download). Therefore it could chart. But that doesn't change anything right now! – anemone projectors – 16:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is where complexity comes in... although you can buy "Colorblind" as a digital track separate from its parent EP Hurt: The EP here, it would still be ineligible to chart because its parent work Hurt: The EP is classified as a single not an album. Otherwise both "Colorblind" and Hurt: The EP would both chart on the singles chart. Now that "Colorblind" is included on an album here in theory it could chart subsequently, but the charts included are for the EP. Does that make sense? &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  22:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. The acoustic version I bought for 79p is no longer available, but I forgot that downloading the (non-acoustic) track from the album could make it chart in the singles chart. But it hasn't and probably won't. Surely it could also have charted just from people downloading it off the EP without buying the EP? (Same as a b-side, like when "Forgiveness" charted?) – anemone projectors – 22:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lil-Unique had the best explanation as to why. Zac (talk &middot; contribs) 21:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:PERNOM Till 01:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's funny, I didn't say "Delete per nom". Leave me alone. Zac (talk &middot; contribs) 03:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't have to. Your !vote is more useless than an album template. Till 05:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make any sense what-so-ever. You just linked me to an essay (that's right, not a policy nor a guideline) that states that you shouldn't say "Per nominator", which I didn't. Is that so? Well, so is your comment. Zac (talk &middot; contribs) 05:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Who cares if it's an essay, your rationale is still poor. And why on earth are you taking note of my edit summaries in your userspace page? I now see why so many people on this project dislike you. Till 05:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As is yours. Not that it has anything at all to do with this AfD, but just so I don't have to go through all your edits again and find all your uncivil remarks for your next report, which I assume is coming fairly soon from the way you've been acting. That doesn't quite make sense, as you're the first person I've ever had to keep track of, but whatever you want to say. Here's a shovel. Zac (talk &middot; contribs) 05:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "So I don't have to go through all your edits again and find all your uncivil remarks for your next report" → Honestly I don't think you know how creepy and socially awkward you sound right now. Instead of constantly stalking me and following everything that I do, why don't you find something more productive to do on this project that's actually beneficial. Thankyou. Till 05:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, so now you're coming at me for the type of person I am? As a matter of fact, I am socially awkward, "an individual excessively afraid of social interaction due to some form of peer rejection or personal choice." Not that it has any relevance at all to this already off-topic discussion. Says the one who must have been stalking my contribs to find out I had been keeping track of theirs. Maybe a few more. Zac (talk &middot; contribs) 05:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge and Redirect to Hurt: The EP. There is little reason to go around deleting singles.  Just move it to the obvious place.  There are no space limitations in either article to prevent a merge, and the EP has only 3 songs.  In-depth coverage of each of those 3 songs there is a no-brainer.  In fact, I'd suggest redirecting even more search terms to   Th e S te ve   09:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There's nothing to merge but I think a redirect would be a good idea. This is a cover version of a Counting Crows song, so to be honest the page should be located at Colorblind (Counting Crows song), which would then redirect to the album it's on, and the link for the Lewis song can redirect to her EP. – anemone projectors – 10:09, 28 October 2012 (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.