Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homeless Heart


 * 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   delete. Tim Song (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Homeless Heart

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

None of the sources is a secondary source; every source is primary (label, artists' official websites). There is a link to a news article, but it's broken. Absolutely nothing found at Google News save for a few false positives. Simply being recorded by several artists does not translate to notability if the song fails WP:GNG. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete no decent sources and doesn't look like it made any major charts. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 01:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - No significant coverage provided. Unable to find any. Fails GNG. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Sourcing can be fixed. Stott is notable, charting in Canada.  The single was covered by Rice, who has charted in the UK, and the cover was the theme to Paradise Hotel.  It was also covered by Regner, who is notable in Germany, and the album featuring that cover charted, as per the  article.  It was also covered by notable actress McCurdy as a part of a presumably publicised charity action.  Honestly? - BalthCat (talk) 06:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Yes, honestly. We have been unable to find reliable sources sufficient to create a reasonably detailed article. If "sourcing can be fixed", we have been unable to do so. Please demonstrate your case. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not interested in the topic, so I am not investing my time in researching it. There are weak sources that establish the information within the article.  Sourcing issues are correctable, generally, and not sufficient for the scalpel.  "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion" - WP:ATD That is, in the absence of indication that this is outright erroneous or unsourceable, deletion is unjustified. - BalthCat (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You are correct; if the sourcing could be corrected, then deletion is unwarranted. However, this discussion indicates that at least three editors (including myself) have made an effort to find reliable sources and failed to find any.  Unless someone can locate at least one reliable, third-party source, we must conclude that the article is, in fact, unsourceable. Davnor (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you not find any sources, or not find sufficient/reliable sources? Maybe I'm underestimating the effort spent, but is five minutes of Googling meant to give a decisive answer to the question of whether it is ultimately sourceable?  Are you actually objecting to the sources' veracity, or merely their strength? (These are by no means the same thing.)  You can't say that information just doesn't exist because the sources are all currently weak.  This sort of ostrich-like behaviour is highly frustrating, and I have never found a policy guideline indicating it is preferable.  Weak/moderate sources indicate to the reasonable person that sourcing may be possible, and as such, one turns to WP:ATD to look for other options.  I am far from convinced the world has been scoured for proof that a song by a notable artist that has been covered by three other notable artists, in the ways indicated, is NN. - BalthCat (talk) 03:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please be careful about assuming a lack of a good faith effort. I can not speak to the thoroughness of others, but I searched using multiple resources, including Academic Search Complete, several periodical databases available through my local library, and an Internet search, and I simply could not find any independent, reliable sources providing significant coverage of the song in question, which is the criteria for WP:MUSIC.  Does that mean that such sources don't exist? No, but if they do exist, someone must find and cite them; a belief that sources probably exist, due to a topic's popularity, does not qualify as evidence. Davnor  (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Can not find any evidence of significant coverage. Davnor (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2010 (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.