Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thank You for the Heartbreak


 * 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   merge to Sweet 7. (non-admin closure) TBrandley (what's up) 18:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank You for the Heartbreak

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Considering WP:NSONGS I don't believe this song is notable. It hasn't received extensive coverage from third party sources as the primary topic. The background section is made up of almost all information from the recording booklet whilst the critical reception comments are part of wider album reviews and could be merged to the album's page. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  13:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to Sweet 7. This can easily be covered there, perhaps in a section discussing the songs on the album. --Michig (talk) 13:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 *  Keep  as the song was significantly covered by two independent reliable sources away from its parent album.  The same guideline that the nominator cites is one which states that receiving significant coverage in multiple sources is an indicator of notability.  Till  13:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * comment, it also hasn't charted. Its not like the album's page is bulging with information, the information could easily be merged. Notice how album's like Killer Love have a section about the composition of songs. &mdash;  Lil_ ℧ niquℇ № 1  [talk]  13:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to chart. That very guideline that you have cited above explicitly states that if a song has received significant coverage in multiple sources then it is an indicator of notability. It doesn't have to meet all of the criteria, just "at least one" which this does. Also, if your main concerns here are to merge the content in the album article, why on earth did you create a deletion discussion? Till  13:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair point re merging. --Michig (talk) 13:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I would have to question whether idolator.com would be considered a reliable source and the digital spy one is not significant coverage. --Michig (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry? The Digital Spy source is about "two new songs", of which was this one, and contained about six sentences of the song. How is that not significant coverage? Also, Idolator is a notable and reliable website about music-related content Till  13:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Idolator is a blog, according to our article on it, and the Digital Spy article's entire content specifically about this song is "Then there's 'Thank You For The Heartbreak', a snappy electropop number that could have slotted quite nicely onto the Change album. There's a definite 80s feel to it, but it still sounds distinctively Sugababes." That is not significant coverage by any definition. --Michig (talk) 13:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And how about the final paragraph of the source? It discusses both songs including "Heartbreak" which you have completely omitted. Per WP:GNG significant coverage doesn't need to be the main topic of the source material so your argument is invalid. Till  14:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 13:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You have a poor understanding of what constitutes significant coverage. That doesn't make my argument invalid. We're clearly not going to agree on this, so let's see what other editors think. --Michig (talk) 14:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought it was stupid that you dismissed a paragraph germane to this topic without consideration, but stating that I have a poor understanding of significant coverage in retaliation is ridiculous. Clearly you need to find something more productive to do with your time other than make unnecessary statements about people's understandings and weak Afd arguments. Kthanksbye. Till  14:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Digital Spy is a news site, just as Idolator is. Idolator is a reputable website that is owned by a parent company, Buzz Media. It's not some random one-person owned website. — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 14:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Being a news site doesn't automatically make it reliable and independent. The fact that one of Buzznet's major investors in Universal Music Group ("one of the first times a music company will be directly involved in developing editorial programming for a social media site, with both companies sharing in the revenue" ) and UMG owns Island Records, the label that the album that contains this song was released on, means we should be cautious about treating this as a reliable source. --Michig (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge to main album - Idolator is a blog, so that's discarded. Digital Spy would not be a reliable source for me - it has a very tabloid-esque/blog-esque writing style, and there is no way a handful of lines constitutes "significant coverage". The fact it hasn't charted also counts against it scraping through. In terms of what is in the article, the BBC interview is about the main album, as is the Telegraph article, the Entertainment Ireland article, and even the iTunes Store link! The rest is either similarly disconnected from this subject matter, or is not a reliable source. The main article is not excessively big - so this belongs there. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Regardless of your own opinion, Digital Spy is a reliable source. As for Idolator, being a blog does not matter one bit. I guess we would also have to discard every single Popjustice source used on a music article too since that's also a blog. Till  02:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It does matter as we are looking for coverage in reliable sources to establish if this song is notable. Blogs can be notable if the person writing them is an expert, or at least well regarded, in their field. I am not convinced that Robbie Daws is. His profile page doesn't suggest any reasons why his blog writing should be considered a reliable source of information. Even so the blog is relatively short, about six sentences about the song. The Digital Spy one (which I have no trouble considered reliable) is even shorter with just two dedicated to this song. AIR corn (talk) 08:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My point is that Popjustice is a blog just like Idolator, so it doesn't mean that if something's a blog it's automatically unreliable. Till  09:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, generally blogs are unreliable, unless they're being written by independent professional writers. And I fail to see remotely how Digital Spy can be a reliable source, based on both the writing style, and the fact that they're far from independent of the singers, as Michig pointed out. This is all irrelevant anyway, as there's far from significant coverage. I appreciate you seem to be a Sugababes fan, but you can't allow a COI to get the better of you :) Lukeno94 (talk) 09:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The only person who is disputing the reliability of Digital Spy is you, and you are incorrect because it is reliable. In fact, it is one of the most trusted websites on Wikipedia for music-related articles. Michig was talking about Idolator (the blog) as being not independent of the band. Also, if you had bothered to look below you will see that I switched to merge this article, so your accusations of me having COI is out of line and unnecessary. Till  10:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I apologize about that one, I did get the two mixed up, but I stand by my point: that's not a reliable source. And I had indeed already seen your merge vote before that comment, so I did "bother to look below". I suggest we kill this argument before one of us ends up in trouble. Lukeno94 (talk) 11:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge to album. The information here can easily be merged to the album article as most of the sources used are covering the album. The two featured sources above (even if shown to be reliable) are not enough to provide "significant coverage" of the song to my mind. AIR corn (talk) 08:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge. I have switched my !vote to merge if the Idolator source is found to be unreliable. I still disagree with the nominator's attempt to have the entire content deleted instead of adding a simple merge tag to the article. Till  08:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to Sweet 7. Not enough reliable sources. --SuperHotWiki (talk) 07:36, 23 January 2013 (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.