Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feels Good at First


 * 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   Redirect to California 37. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Feels Good at First

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Fails WP:NSONGThis article is a stub that should be deleted, as it is for a non notable, iTunes only single. In it's current state it is a list of technical information about the single and lacks any statement or prose as to it's notability and provides no information that could not be found via the album page. It's charting is a minor chart or statistic, if it were on a top chart, I would not have nominated it.

Addendum, I could easily see a redirect being appropriate.Newmanoconnor (talk) 00:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - the song has charted and, therefore, passes WP:NSONG. Greenock125 (talk) 13:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It does not matter if it has charted on a minor chart as long as it has charted on any country's national music chart it passes WP:NSONG. Greenock125 (talk) 13:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually it states a national,NOT any countries national music chart. The significant chart for this region would be an EU or the UK chart, as they carry the same weight as billboards top charts. Furthermore the clause also goes on to state that being on a chart does not make a stub on a single song, worthy of it's own page inherently. It also goes on to state that a page like this should be merged into the Blum or deleted. I originally chose merge, by tagging it, TWICE, once after you removed the tag without discussion. Newmanoconnor (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect, not all charting songs are notable. This only charted on a secondary, digital-only chart, which just isn't enough. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

comment I would agree with the redirect rationale as well.Newmanoconnor (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect: Song is not notable at this time.— Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 19:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to California 37, the song's parent album. The best coverage I've found for the song - - are mentions within reviews for the album. There does not appear to be enough material to warrant an individual article at this time.  Gongshow  Talk 23:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to California 37.   Th e S te ve   07:18, 30 April 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.