Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Good Enough (Evanescence 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 02:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Good Enough (Evanescence song)

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

At AFD because editor reverted redirect. Never charted on any acceptable charts, fails WP:NSONGS. &mdash;Kww(talk) 23:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC) (
 * Delete Clearly fails notability requirements per WP:NSONGS. Dgf32 (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I do not see how NSONGS trumps the general notability guideline, which this article appears to meet with multiple third-party sources. Is strong charting now the only way a song warrants an article? — Huntster (t • @ • c) 23:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There was a debate recently at an attempt to generate a compromise for fiction articles about that exact topic. There was no consensus. Many felt (as I do) that you have to meet both the general notability guideline and any specific guideline. Others felt that an article was fine as long as it met one or the other. That leaves us arguing about each individual article at AFD.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is quite unfortunate, since there are so many better things we can be doing ;) It makes no sense to me, however, why a song must have charted well to be considered notable; the basic notability guideline is of primary consideration...everything else is of secondary importance. Oh well, differences of opinion. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 00:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Commentary Actually, it's pretty debatable as to whether this meets the general guidelines, either. The first two sources( don't specifically mention this song. The third source, from VH1, provides a listing of all cuts on the album, which has a hard time contributing to the notability of any individual song. The Blender interview is fine. Sony BMG isn't an independent source. Videostatic is a blog, and just has a "now shooting" blurb. Evanescence.com isn't independent. So, only one source, which makes it pretty marginal.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep There are more than enough sources to cite the single. Pictures of the CD single cover and alternate cover are plusses. There's even a snapshot of the music video. Plus there's a story behind the song, clearly it means a lot to the writer and singer. Just because it didn't chart in the top ten does not mean it shouldn't have it's own article. In my opinion, this article meets all the requirements to warrant its own page. Jeremy706 (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Close nomination Just reinstate and discuss the redirect. There's no point in bringing this to a deletion discussion when a redirect is also an option and has already been in use. - Mgm|(talk) 11:13, 8 December 2008 (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.