Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Don't Want You to Go (Lani Hall song) (2nd nomination)


 * 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The result was   Withdrawn although it would help if the people who say "keep, there are sources" would, you know, actually ADD the freaking things... Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I Don't Want You to Go (Lani Hall song)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Some "keep" !votes hinged on the fact that multiple artists recorded the song, but the only sources to verify that are individual directory listings on allmusic — not an example of non-trivial coverage in any sense of the word. There's clearly not "enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" per WP:NSONGS, nor is there any sort of non-trivial third party coverage. Last AFD was "no consensus" with virtually no participation after 2 weeks. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - The references appear to verify individual directory listings appear to be merely to validate with reliable sources that the article meets the last criterion from this sentence from WP:NSONGS indicating probably notability: "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." There is no requirement for those references to provide non-trivial coverage, other than that validation of recordings by multiple notable artists.  As for whether there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article, that is a judgement call as to a given editor's view of how detailed is "reasonably detailed" enough. Rlendog (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The article just says "X recorded the song on album Y" six times. Tell me how that's "reasonably detailed". Also, tell me how any article can get away with blatantly ignoring WP:GNG. Oh wait, THEY FREAKING CAN'T. Is today Idiot Vote Day on Wikipedia? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not convinced that the article is detailed enough; hence my "comment" rather than !vote to "keep". However, there is a lot more to the article than saying "'X recorded the song on album Y' six times."  There are also brief critical comments on three of the versions, information about the personnel who recorded the Lani Hall version, information on which album (or alternative) each version was released on, the publication date of the song, and the fact that Herb Alpert modified the Lani Hall version in 1983.  As for "blatantly ignoring WP:GNG," that is not the case; the issue is whether the song meets WP:NSONG (or whether perhaps there is an alternate reason to keep or delete) as you are well aware, since the deletion nomination does not even mention WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. You gotta be kidding me; this song was apparently recorded independently by eight – EIGHT – different artists notable enough to merit their own articles. This nomination frankly baffles me. 28bytes (talk) 02:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Tell me how you think we can stand to have an article without any non-trivial coverage. Apparently some articles get a free pass to totally ignore WP:GNG just based on the whims of individual editors. There are countless other songs that have been widely recorded but haven't gotten any secondary source coverage that amounts to more than "x recorded song Y — so what?" Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * TPH, you can Google as well as I can. You found the allmusic description of the song as an "emotive ballad", right? And the Philippine newspaper review of Mark Bautista's performance of the song? And the other Philippine newspaper that describes the song as "the best of the lot" of the songs on the Sharon Cuneta album? All three of these are from a quick Google News Archive search with artist and title; I haven't even tried the other five yet. Personally, I've never heard the song, so it might be terrible, but the fact that eight notable artists independently recorded it makes it notable, full stop. I'll agree with you that the article as it stands now is sparse, and mostly just a list of who recorded it, but that has no bearing on whether the song itself is notable. 28bytes (talk) 05:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * How about adding those sources that Google was clearly hiding from me? I could Google "google" and get no results. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 06:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Be happy to. Give me 15 minutes and they'll be in the article. 28bytes (talk) 06:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. 28bytes (talk) 06:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - I know it's not a criterion of course, but it seems to be popular enough for 50 Wikipedia pages to link to it. Kudpung (talk) 06:16, 11 December 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.