Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hero (X Factor release)


 * 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 Hero (Mariah Carey song). History retained - there is some sourced material there, so editors can discuss at the talk page for Hero (Mariah Carey song) what to merge back in. Cirt (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hero (X Factor release)

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

Completely unnecessary split of Hero (Mariah Carey song). Individual covers do not normally receive individual articles, and I see no justification for making an exception in this case. Attempt to restore standard format was reverted with a demand to "take it to AFD", so here we are. No history to preserve, because it was all carved out of the parent article, so simple deletion is all that is necessary. "Merging" would be counter-productive when all that is necessary is to undo the split. &mdash;Kww(talk) 00:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Note I am the editor who split the articles. There was a brief discussion on the talkpage about this during a separate discussion about an edit-war. (well I said I was going to do it and no-one objected.) This is an extraordinary cover that is taking an extraordinary amount of space in the original article: a cover version is not relevant to the original artist. A cover that sells 500,000 copies is notable in its own right. This cover has received a lot of media attention, meets general notability requirements, is verified and I see no reason to delete this article. Woody (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)




 * Delete, per nom. It does not warrant its own article. SKS2K6 (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Warrant? Is there a policy regarding worthiness? Woody (talk) 10:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The cover charted #1 in two different charts, which makes this independently notable according to WP:MUSIC. Also, there is sufficient material to sustain a separate article. Keeping this tucked in the original article gives too much weight to material that isn't actually by Mariah Carey in an article about her version of the song. - Mgm|(talk) 09:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article isn't about "her version of the song", it's about the song originally performed by her. That's a significant difference. All "Mariah Carey" is doing in the title is to distinguish this from Hero (Chad Kroeger song), not to restrict the article to material about Mariah Carey's particular version.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect and use the splitsection process. This AfD could go both ways as it's still the same song, even if notable, but this is not the place to count heads of separatists vs. mergists. – sgeureka t•c 09:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree, this is quite a good place for it. If this is deleted at afd, then realistically, it can't be recreated through the splitsection process. It already has been split, I was just bold and did it. Woody (talk) 10:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why can't it be recreated through splitsection? Anyway, my point was that as deletion always needs to be discussed to be successful (except speedies of course), and splitting is not, a mergist or deletionist is always in the disadvantage when trying to undo a bold page split. The bold split is being opposed, and by bringing back the status quo and forcing parties to discuss before splitting, it's all fair again. – sgeureka t•c 10:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If this is deleted, then if any discussion afterwards says "create new article" then that new article automatically qualifies for speedy deletion under G4 as the reason for deletion would still not have been addressed, it is the same content. This AFD is to me, effectively a referendum on the split, though I am yet to revert the re-addition by Kww on Hero (Mariah Carey song). Woody (talk) 11:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I take G4's "that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted" to mean that if this article gets deleted as "it was split without discussion", and then gets recreated as "discussion showed it should be split", G4 no longer applies. Even if my interpretation is wrong (who knows), feel free to interpret my !vote as just redirect. – sgeureka t•c 11:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The song charted at number 1; you can't get any more notable. Stifle (talk) 12:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The song is notable, no question, that's why it's got its own article at Hero (Mariah Carey song). Is a split still justified? Maybe, but it hasn't happened with other highly notable cover versions such as of e.g. Stand by Me (song) and With a Little Help from My Friends. (Just pointing this out; feel free to ignore me). – sgeureka t•c 13:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Whilst I recommend "other stuff exists" that it is a cover is not the only reason this song is notable; you also have to consider the wider social impact of this song. Look at the Hero (Mariah Carey song): a third of the readable prose is about a cover version. This is a notable performance in its own right. Woody (talk) 13:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd observe, as the individual who made the comment, that the section really kicked the arse out of the required detail. My inclination would have been to cull the detail rather than break it out into a different article with an excessive level of detail.  From a pure policy perspective the article can probably be kept, but my inclination would be that it doesn't deserve to.
 * I will acknowledge that I prefer the Signal to Noise ration of written communication to be high and that's not a style that's all that common in Wikipedia.
 * ALR (talk) 14:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect. To the covers section on Hero (Mariah Carey song) as they are the same song, just like the Leona Lewis version on Run (Snow Patrol song), as they are both the same song also. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Hero (Mariah Carey song). Same songwriters, same song - this is a cover version. JamesBurns (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not disputing that it is a cover, I don't think anyone is. The point is that the cover itself is independently notable per WP:MUSIC and per our Verifiability. There is, as far as I'm aware, no policy that dictates all covers must be included on the original article. Woody (talk) 11:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no policy stating that, but it is the established convention, and you haven't presented any reason for this song to be an exception. Covers are frequently more successful than the original, and frequently take more space in an article than the original. There are a handful of cases where the article barely mentions the original.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So? Other stuff exists, what is your point? You haven't provided me with a policy or even a guideline that this article breaches. I have pointed out how successful this cover has been, the influence it has had regarding the Help for Heroes campaign amongst others. Whilst the lyrics may be the same, the song as a whole is different and I don't see why they should be lumped together awkwardly on one article. We are not stretched for space, we don't need to conserve the server space. There are more than enough sources for the cover article to meet notability requirements no matter what you think convention is. Precedents are made all the time. Woody (talk) 18:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly precedents are set all the time. What makes this one a precedent-setter? Why is the whole convention of titling songs by "Name (original performer song)" worth disrupting in this case? I Get By with a Little Help from My Friends discusses the original for about 25% of the article. Got My Mojo Workin' intertwines the discussion of three different songs, and barely discusses the less famous (although certainly best) version by Ann Cole and the Suburbans. Route 66 (Cheetah Girls) has spent most of it's life as a redirect, although pre-teens occasionally attempt to redirect it as a separate article. All over Wikipedia, single articles are built around the different versions of a song, and I can't find an example of a cover version being split out.  If there's a problem with dominating the article, that's easily fixed: eliminate all the reviews of the television show it was on, the discussion of chart trajectory information (disparaged in WP:Record charts), unnecessary hooplah language like "The single stayed at number one for a second week and managed to fight off tough competition from Beyoncé Knowles, Britney Spears, Leona Lewis, and Alesha Dixon. It then continued its reign at number one for a third week fighting off competition from T.I. ft. Rihanna and The Killers (although these entered the UK Singles Chart on downloads only).", etc. If the information in the article was focused on the song, it would shrink by 75%.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Whilst some of it could be cut down, in the same vein, it could be expanded with a lot more information. That an article needs work is not a reason for deletion or merger. You still have not provided a policy-based reason, the only reason I can gather is: don't shake the boat. Woody (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Don't rock the boat" is a major component of consensus.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not a component of consensus, in fact it's probably the antithesis. It's suppression of dissent, essentially if you don't agree with majority then shut up, go forth and procreate...
 * ALR (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly didn't mean it in that fashion. If the boat is stable and going in the desired direction, there isn't much call to rock it, though. It's Woody's obligation to demonstrate that the boat will go in a better direction if we change course, and he has not done so.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I believe I have: their is more than enough material to warrant a separate article, especially considering the special circumstances surrounding this single. There is more than enough material for a GA here. The article meets all notability requirements and all policy requirements. What is does not meet is your personal opinion of what Wikipedia articles on covers should look like. The reasons are all laid out here, you just don't accept them as valid reasons, which is your prerogative. Woody (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: There should be some sort of policy for covers, as this issue keeps coming up all the time. Someone already mentioned Run (Snow Patrol song), notably covered by Leona Lewis.  Current Wikipedia consensus dictates that articles are for songs, not for versions.  No, it is not policy, and nowhere does it say in WP:MUSIC or WP:SONGS to do so.  However, if this changes (for example, if it becomes policy to write separate articles for different versions or covers), then a very strong line has to be drawn.  It should be obvious that one-time performances or album tracks shouldn't merit their own articles (i.e., "Last Christmas" redone by Ashley Tisdale or Billie Piper), but what about covers that charted?  Or charted well?  Or, in this case, went #1?  User:Woody, I understand your point in that this version is a notable cover, and I respect that.  In other words, I'm not saying that you don't have a point.  You do.  However, the page, as it stands, is all the page is going to be, because there won't be additional information on the song.  What I mean by that is: it's released, it's charted at #1, and that's pretty much it.  Moreover, there's information in the page that, frankly, is quite trivial.  It doesn't really matter that certain contestants got jammed behind a door, or that other contestants were sick, or that certain contestants had certain parts.  Also, listing consecutive weeks' positions is in violation of WP:CHARTS.  The remaining notable information could easily be merged back into Hero (Mariah Carey song), in its own separate section, neatly and cleanly, which it already is.  (And I guess this is an explanation of my vote earlier, as Woody requested what I meant by "worthiness".)  SKS2K6 (talk) 06:37, 10 January 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.