Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Then You Left Me (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   delete. Soft delete. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Then You Left Me
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Entirely unremarkable album track, fails WP:SONG TheLongTone (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC) Last AFD closed as "no consensus" after nobody bothered to make any opinion known...

I am also proposing deletion of the following similarly unremarkable recordings.
 * TheLongTone (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * TheLongTone (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * TheLongTone (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * TheLongTone (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * TheLongTone (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * weak deleteThe fact that these tracks are unremarkable should not play into whether or not they deserve a standalone article; however, I think it seems excessive to have standalone articles for songs unless they were singles or major hit or otherwise notable on their own aside from being performed by a notable band. Any good information could be merged into the album pages. I feel like a tourist (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  19:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Just how does not being remarkable "not play into whether or not they deserve a standalone article"?? TheLongTone (talk) 01:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What I meant was that "unremarkable" (the way I took it) is simply your opinion of the song. For instance, I think that this entire band (let alone any individual albums or songs) is completely unremarkable, but there is no denying their notability and the fact that they deserve an article.  Maybe I mistook your use of the work unremarkable, though...if what you meant was that the song itself has never received enough coverage/popularity/success to support a standalone article, then that makes sense, but then again, if the article contains content that is verifiable, an argument against deletion could possibly be made--but you won't be hearing it from me--I maintain my stance of 'weak delete'.I feel like a tourist (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * By unremarkable I mean fails WP:SONG: no critical attention (I'm sure the Bee Gees obsessive who created these articles would have found it), no chart success at all, not even one week at #97 on Ascension Island, &c &c. TheLongTone (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. These all fail WP:SONG. Doctorhawkes (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2014 (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.