Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Too Good to Be True (1936 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The result was   Withdrawn per WP:HEY. I was not abusing AFD as cleanup; I really could not find a scrap of info on this song or Clay Boland. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 13:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Too Good to Be True (1936 song)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Probably not notable. I can't find any information on Clay Boland. There are several versions of the song, but the only verifications of it are dubious-looking discography sites or Allmusic. Just because several people cut a song doesn't inherently make it notable. None of these artists' pages make any mention of the song. No version charted, no version was ever reviewed at any length. If there is literally no more that can be said on this song, then it fails WP:NSONGS.

(As an aside, the page went unedited for 2 1/2 years before a prod in April 2011. After that, BRG added a couple sources, but as I said, they all look dubious or say nothing about the song besides that it exists. After that, it had literally no other edits until now. The utter lack of traffic would also hint at non-notability.) Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Boland and the song are covered in detail in The Unsung Songwriters: America's Masters of Melodies. Warden (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Of course, the notability guidelines used to say that because several people cut a song, it was notable. It seems that one is trying to hit a moving target in attempting to comply with the notability requirements. This repeated challenge on grounds of notability to perfectly good articles is the main reason I hardly ever edit Wikipedia any more and have devoted my time to Wikia. I wonder what, by the way, TPH would consider a "non-dubious" source &mdash; the sources I gave are in fact the best discographical information available on the Web. -- BRG (talk) 11:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Then what makes this one reliable? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The site at happens to be the most comprehensive online discography online. Do you know of any other that you trust more? -- BRG (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What makes it most trusted? Is there any proof that it's overseen by an editorial staff? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I would be interested to know what steps the nominator took to establish his confident statement that no version of this song was ever reviewed at any length, bearing in mind that the Internet postdates the song by a good few decades. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your argument is just as invalid unless you can prove in some fashion that print sources exist on the song. We can't just guess that there might be print sources on the song. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't made any argument, so my argument can't possibly be invalid. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See Warden's comment just above, pointing to The Unsung Songwriters: America's Masters of Melodies. Is that not a "print source"? -- BRG (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's still just one. And I can't even see the preview, so I don't know how in depth it is. It could just be a name-drop. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's one of the problems with Google Books. It seems to serve up different previews depending on your location, your browser, the alignment of the planets, your inside leg measurement and many other parameters. The preview that I can see says, "...first contributions for the production "Red Rumba" was a little gem called Too Good to Be True. This was promply slated for immortality with an outstanding recording by the Benny Goodman Trio featuring Helen Ward on the vocal. The original Victor 78 rpm record was reissued on Volume II of..." (copied as fair use) . Phil Bridger (talk) 23:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment – As a song published in 1936, sources available on the internet may be difficult to locate. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment – Some mentions:, . Northamerica1000(talk) 00:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:NSONG that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable.  D r e a m Focus  01:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If anyone doubts these people song this song, you have only to check Amazon.com or Google book search.  for the name of the musician and the song. "Charlie Barnet" "Too Good to Be True"  Perhaps also search for the lyrics or the name of the song writer.   D r e a m Focus  01:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NSONG only says that it may, MAY, FREAKING MAY  be notable. All your sources do is confirm that versions of the song exist. Do you really think an article can consist entirely of "X recorded the song, and so did Y, Z, π, œ and Ø" with literally no other "meat" to it? Where did anyone discuss the song in detail? Where was it reviewed? Did a version ever chart? I'm not finding a damn thing on the latter two points. Regardless of the song's age, you should not have to search so hard to find any scrap of notability. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Why shouldn't an article consist entirely of such information? Many, if not most, articles in print encyclopedias look like that. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete While it may be difficult to find sources, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, not the editor proposing removal. Refs 1,2,4,6 are unreliable as primary sources.  Ref 3 is a dead link.  That leaves ref 5, which is a passing mention.  The google book result would make 1 in depth source if it was an in depth mention.  It does not appear to be so, being mentioned exactly once as best I can tell.  If there were multiple such sources, it might be a keep.  I do not see multiple such sources.  --Nouniquenames (talk) 04:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Primary sources are not necessarily unreliable. For uncontroversial factual information that doesn't require interpretation they are often the most reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. I've expanded the article using information from three books. There is enough verifiable material in online sources alone (including Google Books) to support a reasonably detailed article, and the subject appears to satisfy WP:MUSIC. Additionally, if the article is kept, it should probably be renamed Too Good to Be True (Clay Boland song), a la Hallelujah (Leonard Cohen song) and Blue (Bill Mack song).  Gongshow  Talk 08:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep – This topic appears at the very least to meet WP:GNG per:
 * —Thanks to User:Gongshow for locating these sources and adding them to the article. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:15, 16 July 2012 (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.
 * —Thanks to User:Gongshow for locating these sources and adding them to the article. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:15, 16 July 2012 (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.
 * 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.