Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/So Here We Are/Positive Tension


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

So Here We Are/Positive Tension

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable song by itself. Merge to artist's article instead failing WP:GNG. Jay Σεβαστός discuss  11:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  —  Gongshow  Talk 18:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment So merge it, AfD is not the place to request or discuss merges. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/So_Here_We_Are/Positive_Tension
 * Keep How is a song that placed at #5 in the UK singles chart not notable?  WP:NSONG Robman94 (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. It charted. Meets the notability guideline. Happily ever after.  I Help, When I Can. [12] 00:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Major hit single. Clearly notable. --Michig (talk) 08:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete & Redirect I'm pretty sure that #5 on a national chart doesn't make a song notable without some sort of award or recognition, but in any case there is not enough here to make an article so it fails the second part of WP:NSONGS - this is just (and is likely to only ever be) a track listing and some facts about crew that are equally applicable to the album Bob House 884 (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd add that I disagree with Night Gyr and imo its totally acceptable to bring this here, nom wants the article's content deleted and redirecting is obviously the appropriate step after that. Bob House 884 (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement for a song/single to have received an award to be notable. If it's been written about it's notable, and I've found reviews of this from rockfeedback, The Sun, The Daily Mirror, and the Sunday Mail, and further coverage from The Telegraph.--Michig (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * To reitarate, I favour deletion because there is not enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article per WP:NSONGS. For comparison, the current #5 single's article looks like this - it has multiple, well sourced and verifiable sections on different significant areas of the subject, it has achieved this in around 2 months. The AfD concerns a single which may be as notable, but which has never become more than a stub despite existing for over 4 years. I don't think its unreasonable to suggest that this article will never grow beyond a stub and therefore should be a redirect to the main article. A rescue may be a possibility, but in it's current state this is a slam dunk delete. Bob House 884 (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2011 (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.