Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Time of Our Lives (Miley Cyrus song)


 * 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   redirect to The Time of Our Lives (EP). Tim Song (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The Time of Our Lives (Miley Cyrus song)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable song. Charted at #51 in Canada but there just isn't enough third-party coverage to warrant an article at this time. – Chase  ( talk ) 23:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Are you kidding me? Do you honestly expect there to be not enough coverage for a song by Miley Cyrus? Keep per, , , , , , , and more. Joe Chill (talk) 00:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * All of those articles pertain to the album of the same name. – Chase  ( talk ) 17:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Blogcritics.org, The-trades.com, Commonsensemedia.org, and Sputnikmusic.com are not reliable sources. So that only leaves MTV, About.com, and The Guardian, hence why it is useless having an article for this song. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 23:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - per WP:NALBUM where the notability of Cyrus plus the officially released status meet its criteria. Plus, what he said. moreno oso (talk) 02:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NALBUM does not apply here. – Chase  ( talk ) 17:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect to The Time of Our Lives (EP) for now with no prejudice against recreation at the appropriate time. Miley Cyrus isn't Christ, and just because she released a single doesn't make it notable until it actually reaches a notable position on some country's chart. We don't have an article on The Temptations' "You've Got My Soul on Fire" for the same reason. At that time, reinstate the article. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 04:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep plenty of coverage.  C T J F 8 3  chat 15:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you show me where? – Chase  ( talk ) 13:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, article isn't bad, have charts, just that isn't international single. --Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 01:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: I've removed all original research and false charting information to show just how bare this article actually is on information. – Chase  ( talk ) 13:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of that information appeared referenced. If any of those charts are notable, then they should be listed.   D r e a m Focus  01:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The song did not chart on Hot Digital Songs or Bubbling Under, the reference provided did not contain such information. – Chase  ( talk ) 03:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep If a sound charts well, then its notable. Simple as that.  With so much music out there, you wouldn't get on the top 100 even if you were not notable.   D r e a m Focus  01:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Can we ignore all rules and ponder the purpose of keeping a stub article just because it charted? – Chase  ( talk ) 03:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. The song has charted, making it "probably notable" (though not inherently notable) according to WP:NSONGS. With no significant coverage found for this song in independent reliable sources, I'm not opposed to a merge and redirect to The Time of Our Lives (EP), as the sourced info from the song article can be stated in a single sentence (e.g., "The title track, written by X, Y and Z, reached number 51 on the Canadian Hot 100 in January 2010"). WP:NSONGS notes that an independent article is only warranted if it is "reasonably detailed", so depending on where that fine line is drawn, I'd be okay with keeping this too, preferably with additional verifiable material.  Gongshow  Talk 05:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The song may have charted in two charts but it fails to have enough coverage for an actual article here in Wikipedia. With no track listings, no music video, no live performances, and barely anything on background and composition, the article will never pass "Start" class. There's no use in that. Everything mentioned here, which is about four sentences, can be mentioned in the article for The Time of Our Lives. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 17:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Just because a song charted doesn't entitle it to have it's own article. Not near enough coverage to have stand alone article. No live performances, barely any composition and background. Doesnt seem to meet WP:NSONG ..:CK:..  ( talk 2 me ) 22:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - The article was created on the false pretense that it was "announced that it would be the third single by Miley" where no such claim was made. Now she's already releasing a new album. Fixer23 (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to The Time of Our Lives (EP) and copy any relevant additional content to there. I am not opposed to separate song articles by any means, but this article doesn't have much to merit a separate article, and it makes organizational sense to include it as part of the article about the 6-song EP which is named after this very same song.  In most cases, an EP version of a single is always part of the same article.  Though this EP does not appear to be a normal maxi-single type thing, it still makes sense to follow the same convention absent more content requiring a split.--Milowent (talk) 05:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * STRONG Redirect per comments above by Milowent. Plus i state that WP:NSONGS clearly suggests that charting alone is not enough information to prove notability. There's not awards and no critical reception or independent coverage. Also per WP:NSONGS notability aside there is not enough information to warrant a detailed article and it is unlikely that the article will ever grow to a substantial size. Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:55, 20 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.