Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goodbye Marie


 * 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   keep. While there are indeed limited sources available, all major information provided is indeed sourced - so verifiability does not seem to be in question. While a reasonable argument can indeed be made that this doesn't meet the notability threshold; consensus here seems to be that that guideline should be treated with some common sense here. As a charting single it's logically a reasonable search term, and despite the lack of widespread third-party coverage the article still serves a valid encyclopedic purpose: to direct the reader to the pages of the various artists that have performed it. Due to the multiple fairly well-known versions of it, there is not one single redirect target for a merge here, even if the song's notability would normally call for that. ~ mazca  talk 17:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Goodbye Marie

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

This song did chart, but it only peaked at #17 and there are no sources at all. Charting singles are not inherently notable. I've tried twice to redirect it but User:2005 claims that the redirect "makes no sense". Either delete outright for lack of sources, or redirect to Bobby Goldsboro — which does make sense per WP:NSONGS. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are two problems with this nomination.  First, the redirect makes no sense and is actually pretty rude.  Four notable people have significant association with the song: writers Dennis Linde and Mel McDaniel, and three artists have recorded it Bobby Goldsboro, Kenny Rogers and Mel McDaniel.  Goldsboro's version charted the highest, but if anything it is known as McDaniel's song.  Choosing any though is unnecessary.  There are hundreds of song stubs for songs far less notable, and those usually have clear redirects.  This one has four very notable personalities associated with it, which is a good reason to have a separate article so they all can refer to it, and more appropriately reference encyclopedic information about it.  Just pointing it to Goldsboro actually removes the most interesting aspects of what is in the article... that it was a hit twice, and that it was written by two famous songwriters, and that McDaniel missed out on having the first hit by not relesing it as a single.  Additionally the song is in categories that have nothing to do with Goldsboro, 1986 singles and Songs by Dennis Lynde.  We don't delete stubs because of lack of sources, so there is no reason to delete this, but under no circumstances should it be redirected to Goldsboro, deleting it would make more sense than that. 2005 (talk) 01:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also WP:NSONGS clearly supports keeping the article: 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. Following the guideline here is what makes sense, the song is associated with several very notable people. 2005 (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You missed the "probably". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, no. "Probably" clear supports inclusion, not exclusion.  That doesn't mean it mustbe included, but te guideline clearly suggests it should. 2005 (talk) 02:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (copied from 2005's talk page) "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." Probably. As in, not always. Your argument is basically "but other stuff exists". The fact that other song stubs exist is immaterial. And you're also failing to address the main problem, which is lack of sources. I usually give anything Top 10 or higher benefit of the doubt, but back in the 1980s, a song that only got to #17 most likely spent fewer than 10 weeks on the charts — as opposed to today, where some songs have spent 30+ weeks on the charts without reaching top 10, and even the lesser notable songs are usually given lengthy reviews in sites like The 9513, Country Universe, Roughstock, etc. "Goodbye Marie" came and went and was quickly forgotten, and noboy ever wrote about it in detail, so it is not individually notable, even if four artists recorded it. Notability is never inherited simply because there're a lot of bluelink names associated with something. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 01:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Question This is not at all my subject, but I have seen that we consistently interpret "songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts" to mean any position at all on the charts. DGG (talk) 03:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You also forgot the "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." (emphasis mine). There's clearly not enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article, and 2005 is choosing just to dodge that point entirely instead of, you know, digging up sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 06:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment If sources can be found then it's keep, if they can't then it's merge and redirect the performer - either way it's not an article for deletion Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I already tried a redirect, but 2005 is dodging the issue by (unfoundedly) saying that Mel McDaniel is more associated with the song than Bobby Goldsboro is, even though Goldsboro is the only artist to release it as a single. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Why are you making stuff up, and also ignoring the guideline? Both Goldsboro and Rogers issued it as the A side of a single.  McDaniel also issued it as a single, but the B-side, so in total three artists issues it on a 45.  Redirecting to Goldsboro makes little sense, and is very unhelpful to users.  The guideline suggest a redirect to the writer or performer, but as we see there are three performers, and two writers, all very notable persons.  Since McDaniel wrote it, and also released it, he is the most obvious redirect, but again the guideline covers this fairly difficult situation by suggesting when multiple persons are involved the song itself is notable.  2005 (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I added a source from Linde's page at the Songwriters Hall of Fame, who considered it notable enough among the hundreds of songs he has written to include it among the 16 listed, right after Burning Love. It is a hard song to reference because it is mnetioned on a zillion websites, and there are also three other songs of the same name that also appear in searches. Given it's association with so many people though it clearly has potential to be referenced more as time passes. 2005 (talk) 22:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MacMedtalk stalk 00:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - top 20 song. Bearian (talk) 18:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep Verifiable content worth keeping somewhere, and since there's no single, obvious target for a merge/redirect, let's just leave it where it is. Zagalejo^^^ 06:36, 29 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.