Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Songs I Wrote with Amy


 * 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 no consensus. Consensus seems to be divided mostly between "keep" and "merge". (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃  (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 23:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Songs I Wrote with Amy

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Did not find coverage to meet notability. Not certain if sugarscape.com source is good or not but it alone is not enough and the other sources definitely don't clear. QuietHere (talk) 23:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and England. QuietHere (talk) 23:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment There's this,, or this not sure if it's RS.Oaktree b (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Will argue against the first as being primarily about the artists rather than the EP itself; it doesn't mention any of the songs from the EP by name nor get into much specific detail about it, and in fact only names the EP itself twice, and rather is discussing her relationship with the then-unknown Sheeran. The latter has the same issues except the EP is only named once. Thank you for finding both of those, I don't think I saw them in my search (or maybe I skipped over 'em accidentally), but I don't see them as usable here. Could be good for Ed's and Amy's articles though. QuietHere (talk) 01:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Also worth mentioning that I came across this article because of its addition to List of 2010 albums, and that that entry has since been removed on the grounds that the SugarScape source isn't primarily about the EP either (and looking at it again it clearly isn't, dunno why I didn't realise that earlier) which would bring us down to zero sources for this article. And that revert also seems to suggest that Mburrell agrees with me at least about the article not currently being sufficient, though I don't wanna assume their opinion nor ping them here for risk of violating vote brigading rules (though admittedly I have no idea if this would constitute a violation, but I'd rather be safe than sorry). QuietHere (talk) 13:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Redirect to 5 (Ed Sheeran album), which includes this entire EP and actually charted in several countries. I think Oaktree b's sources are good... trouble is, all they say is "Wadge wrote an EP with Ed Sheeran", and nothing else. And the Sugarscape source, whether it's good or bad, is also talking about the 5 album. I can't see that there's enough here to pass WP:NALBUM and justify this separate article. Richard3120 (talk) 23:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Redirect to 5 (Ed Sheeran album). I like album and EP articles, even weakly supported ones, if they provide more information than can be found in any one site elsewhere.  In this case, the article is providing the musicians on the EP. If we just redirect, we would lose the musicians, unless that data is transferred over to the compilation album article, even if the other EP listings don't have the musicians. That could be seed information that would encourage further details to be listed for the other EPs in the collection.  While I might be strict about notable albums being added to lists which are some of the largest articles in Wikipedia, I don't feel non-notable articles need to be deleted if they provide a valuable service. In this case, the EP collection album is the better choice where to list the album information, which is why in this case I support a re-direct. Mburrell (talk) 04:30, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge per comments listed below by Muhandes, and per some of the comments I had mentioned above when I was explaining what I wanted to see happen. Mburrell (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting as the participants seem divided over whether the article should be Kept, Merged or Redirected. Please consider sources that were recently located. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to 5 (Ed Sheeran album). In itself the EP does not seem to satisfy WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. There is however some notable details about the release of this EP which could be well represented in 5. --Muhandes (talk) 09:23, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Vote retracted in light of sources found. --Muhandes (talk) 08:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: I found [//www.google.com/books/edition/Sheeran/n3zgDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22songs+i+wrote+with+amy%22&pg=PT128&printsec=frontcover two] [//www.google.com/books/edition/Ed_Sheeran_Divide_and_Conquer/Yya3DwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22songs+i+wrote+with+amy%22&pg=PT87&printsec=frontcover biographies] of Ed Sheeran that discuss the EP in more than sufficient depth. The former is probably better than the latter in terms of neutrality, but both are extensive and honestly better in terms of WP:SIGCOV than a lot of EPs get. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Added these to the article now, as well as some other info (less for notability purposes than to corroborate a few details). This now clearly passes WP:NALBUM #1 and #5. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Now meets WP:NALBUM with sources presented by Gnomingstuff. They, including sugarscape, are reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:46, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep per the sources added to the article by Gnomingstuff. Article now passes WP:NALBUM. Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:02, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Had a more thorough look at the new sources and personally I'm still unconvinced. Two of the three book sources really only mention the EP in passing and the third only has a few paragraphs about it. Those biographies do as much to make this EP feel like a not-so-notable footnote in Sheeran's career as the rest of the page. And I absolutely don't see an NALBUM #5 pass, surely because that TV Fanatic article only mentions one song on the EP in passing so it wouldn't meet SIGCOV, plus WP:INHERIT may apply (Maybe? Not entirely sure about that one). The BBC Suffolk article is primarily about No. 5 Collaborations Project and also only contains a passing mention of this EP. The rest of the sources I went over already, either passing mentions or non-reliable. If anything, I'm in support of the merge to 5 proposal. There's enough info in the article that deserves to be kept, I just don't think the article itself is there. QuietHere (talk) 05:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Several paragraphs of background in a book-length biography of someone with a fairly long career is enough to pass WP:GNG. ("Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.") The TV Fanatic article is one of the sources I mentioned is "less for notability purposes than to corroborate a few details" -- it is there to confirm the specific episode, since the other sources didn't mention the name. Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Well in that case we've still only got one source for notability. Isn't the general rule of thumb to have at least three? QuietHere (talk) 11:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The two books I linked here (the third is an autobiography so I'm not counting that for notability, it's there to confirm years) both have substantial enough coverage, I think -- background details, details on tracks, actually usable information, etc. -- certainly more than "in passing." Gnomingstuff (talk) 12:39, 26 September 2022 (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.