Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don't Keep Me Waiting


 * 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 Melody (Sharleen Spiteri album). (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Don&

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Song released only in Switzerland; peaked at 78. Non-notable. Article created by sock puppet of banned editor. This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Might be a little potential for expansion. Salon.com lists it as one of their "songs of the summer". Citius Altius (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to the album it's from. Citius Altius (talk) 05:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - nomination acknowledges that the single charted, and thus it meets WP:N. Notability isn't geographically dependent.  If it's notable in Switzerland, it's notable. Rlendog (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Where does WP:N say that every charting single is notable? Citius Altius (talk) 05:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NSONGS, "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." Rlendog (talk) 14:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I did acknowledge that the single charted; I mentioned that it reached 78, however I'm unconvinced that this necessarily constitutes charting - I can't find a confirmation but I did think the target was 75? Moreover, WP:NSONGS also states "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album" - I don't believe an article about a song by a Scottish musician released only in Switzerland and performing poorly in the Swiss market is likely to transcend stub-ery. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 14:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The article says that the song "charted at #78", and the nomination says that it "peaked at 78". I am not sure where it would have peaked at 78 other than on a chart.  While it is true that "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album," I see no reason to presume that this 2 week old article is necessarily unlikely to ever grow beyond a stub. Rlendog (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, a single could reach 78 in the UK, but still fail to be in the Top 40 Singles Chart ;-) Regarding stub-ery - perhaps, but this was released last year and no one's seen fit to create an article before now, and there simply doesn't seem much we could add to the article (with the possible exception of Citius Altius's comments re: Salon). Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 14:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To be fair, you could also go through all the album reviews and extract what they said about this particular track, but the fact that they cover the song in the context of the album seems to suggest that Wikipedia should too. Citius Altius (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know about the UK, but the main US charts generally go to 100. I'm not sure that an artificial cutoff based on where UK charts may typically end make sense.  Citius Altius' point makes sense, but it depends on how much coverage the reviews have for the song.  If the album reviews just mention the song in passing, and there isn't enough cumulative information for a full article, then it may make sense to merge, but if reviews address this song in some detail, then the article should remain as is.  But even there, most singles will be initially covered in within their album reviews, and only over time will we see whether more significant coverage of the song will emerge.Rlendog (talk) 13:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to album, barely charted, few sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:35, 11 June 2009 (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.