Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We All Want Love


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 16:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC) Changing to Redirect following this discussion. Spartaz Humbug! 18:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

We All Want Love

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Another perfect example of CFORK and again another song article which fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. There is absolutely no independent third party coverage except minor mentions in album reviews and those taken from the album's own liner notes. Minor chart placement and no live performances either. This should be deleted or best, redirected to parent album, Talk That Talk. The song being listed as a GA has no qualms on its status as an independent article. — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat ] 18:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Talk That Talk insufficient coverage from secondary sources to warrant an article.  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 18:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - As before, minor charting has no bearing. If a song charted, no matter where or how good, it's fine. No live performances isn't a reason for deletion either. This song has quite a bit of coverage for a non-single. —  ₳aron  21:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  20:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry to burst your bubble, Calvin, but charts/live performances are moot when most if not all secondary sources covering the song are album reviews. WP:NSONGS specifically states that articles should not be made for songs with no third-party coverage outside of album reviews.  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 22:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Live performances isn't mentioned anywhere in the criterion that you are going by. It has no impact. Charting is charting, no matter how good or bad. So obvious what is going on here. —  ₳aron  22:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * My point is that charts are not automatic indicators of notability, regardless of chart positions, particularly when source(s) for the chart positions only mention the track itself briefly. The most crucial aspects are having multiple secondary sources giving coverage independent of the album, and having enough information on the track itself to expand beyond a stub. It is true that the notability criteria for songs says nothing about live performances, but it does state that album review coverage isn't enough.  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 22:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to highlight in this criterion, "Songs that do not rise to notability for an independent article should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song." That would imply that even live performance would not indicate its notability fully. Also Calvin, can you explain how this almost start class article is valid as a separate article when all of its content can be easily present and merged to Talk That Talk? CFORK is also a bigger question that you need to address. — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat ] 05:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No, that's what you are interpreting it to say. As Snuggums agreed, live performances is not mentioned anywhere. Because it's too long to include on the album article for a sub section. —  ₳aron  08:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No I'm not interpreting anything. You are failing to explain how this song is notable, except saying that it is too long to be included in TTT. That is not a valid reason for creating a separate article which does not pass NSONGS. There is no content in this article that is not present/cannot be included in the parent album article, and that does not include the passing mentions in album review. I'm explaining to you how the mere live performance of a song also does not make it notable, and that does not necessarily mean for this song. Also, these weird statements like charting is charting again does not bode well for discussion. What do you mean by that? The charts are not an indicator for GNG or NSONGS. — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat ] 09:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to make you see the comparison, "Cold Case Love" is not nominated for deletion because i has independent third party notability about the song. Multiple references indicate the triggering factor here, inspite of the song not charting. This is a case where NSONGS pass. — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat ] 09:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand, you don't need to spell it out. But no matter how much you dress it up, Cold Case Love has all of it's composition/critical reception made up from album reviews. —  ₳aron  13:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no intention of spelling anything out for you, but CCL has its background and much of its composition from independent third party sources. But thats WP:WAX lets concentrate on this one. I was merely pointing out a comparison trying to answer your question. — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat ] 11:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Merge and redirect or delete. These very minor chart appearances do not confer notability. The article feels very empty, taking a lot of words to say very little- there's nothing in this article which could not be briefly covered in the album article. J Milburn (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, or merge and redirect to article for parent album. Chart peaks alone do not establish notability, and as stated explicitly in the notability guidelines the subject in question must be covered by reliable, third-party sources outside of album reviews. The most informative details of this article could easily be merged into the Talk That Talk article. Holiday56 (talk) 16:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 16:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />


 * Comment this is a  WP:good article  that you have nominated here. Are you sure? -Mr. Guye (talk) 20:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, we're sure this doesn't warrant a separate article. It actually shouldn't have been promoted to begin with due to lack of notability.  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 20:59, 14 September 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.