Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Will You? (Hazel O'Connor 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 keep. (non-admin closure) -- Puddleglum 2.0 (How's my driving?) 17:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Will You? (Hazel O'Connor song)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Another song title that should just be a redirect to its album, and another one that's not going to get there without a detour to AfD... the only source here that is "substantial" is a primary source, by O'Connor herself (plus there is a book - also by her). The rest only ever fleetingly touches on the song, or is lists. Not article material. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: I will of course stand by the result of the AfD, but as the person who restored this article and added sources, I do honestly believe that a song that was a top ten hit in two countries and sold a quarter of a million copies in one of them is far from being not notable, and that it's simply the song's age that prevents further sources from being found online – anyone who was listening to music in the UK in the early 1980s will know this is a very well known song indeed. Richard3120 (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * But that's not how we roll - for any topic. If everyone has heard about X but no one (independently, substantially) has written about it, then we do not have the basis for an article. The approach of "people have heard of it, and we'll just pull material from connected sources and scattered tidbits to fill the article" is not good encyclopedic procedure, and not accepted for any topic on WP - it's not just songs. WP:NSONG is really quite clear about that, and I wish people would check their song articles against that before putting in all the work. I don't enjoy shooting these down either :/ -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand that, and I know that my statement is anecdotal, but the top ten hits and certification aren't. My big problem here is that Wikipedia has an enormous systemic bias towards recent songs and albums, because it's easy to find information on them online, and we will never redress this imbalance unless someone has access to print media from the past and is prepared to spend literally years sitting down and going through it to create decent articles for records from the 1980s and 1990s. Additionally, it's so easy to gain certifications nowadays through streaming (you don't even have to release the record to have it certified), almost every song released now will be considered "notable" because of this, even if they have zero content – I came across this article the other day, for example... to me, it has far less encyclopedic content than the subject of this AfD. But because it has a diamond certification, there is no chance of it being deleted at AfD, even though it tells you next to nothing about the song. Richard3120 (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That's so. If the material isn't online, it's much harder to create a well-sourced article. But that's a consequence of our sourcing model, and the other side of the coin of "all statements can be checked by the reader". - Re Va Bene (L'Algérino song), well that's an obvious candidate for deletion, if no more substantial coverage can be found... umpteen million views notwithstanding. In fact I'll have a check now, and if nothing comes up, to AfD it goes. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I do get what you're saying, and I'm not trying to pick a fight - I've seen your contributions at AfD and page reviewing, and I'm appreciative of your work. I just think we differ in our assessment of what is likely to be notable, if the sources were readily available. I could look at Welcome Home (Peters and Lee song) and Prince Charming (Adam and the Ants song), and once I take out all the unsourced original research and poorly sourced material, all I'm left with for both songs is basically "it reached number one in the UK". The articles would be just a chart position and little else. But... they were both the third biggest-selling singles in the UK in their respective years, 1973 and 1981. Are the articles in their current state complete crap? Undoubtedly. Do I think they should be deleted because the only thing I can verify at present is their chart position? No, not really - if they were outsold by only two records that year, to me that indicates that they are probably notable, if only I had access to print sources from the time. But I don't think we are going to convince each other of our positions here. Richard3120 (talk) 22:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: The song is a Top 10 hit in UK & Ireland. I even found a couple of sources about the song: and . The said sources, including most of the ones stated in the article (except for her book since it's considered a primary source), make the article good enought to pass WP:NSONG. My vote stands.  ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 02:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Little less attitude, little more reasonable comments, please. Are these sources supposed to be jokes? Did you just randomly google the words "will you"? Sheesh. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 03:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We may be on opposite sides of the debate, but I'm in agreement with Elmidae here – two passing mentions of the song, one of which is simply the author saying it was playing on the radio during one event in his life, do not constitute passes of notability... I mean, "radio station plays song" is not exactly an earth-shattering event. Richard3120 (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok. I'll disregard this one, a literature which merely mentions the song. I found a couple more sources which partially explain about the song: and . I have explained enough. And I won't reply any further as my vote stands.  ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 04:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. Obviously notable. Clear pass of WP:NALBUM #2. In practice we would consider this to be notable, especially if it reached the top ten. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sigh - not expecting anything different from Andrew, but from an admin this gets me. Are you among those who do not understand that the criteria at WP:NALBUM (and WP:NSONG) are not pass criteria, but criteria that indicate that there may exist sufficient in-depth coverage to allow a pass? There is no such thing as "pass by WP:NALBUM #2". You still have to demonstrate that coverage exists. Where is it? -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand Wikipedia perfectly well. I've been here 16 years. My opinion, as clearly stated, stands. This is an AfD discussion. Wikipedia does not have strict inclusion criteria. If it did we wouldn't bother with AfDs at all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Argument from seniority plus "I do not have to demonstrate anything, I haz opinion". I'm impressed. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not impressed with your attitude, frankly. But there we go. It's quite obvious nobody else yet agrees with you, so let's just leave it for the closer and stop the arrogant, patronising and insulting tone that you seem to have adopted. As you said above, Little less attitude, little more reasonable comments, please. Applies to you too. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep There are many contexts for the single, not just the album -- the movie, the singer, the sax solo, the IRA anecdote, &c. Per WP:NOTPAPER, there's no good reason we can't have a page to do this properly.  Andrew🐉(talk) 10:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a top ten single in two countries and sold over 200,000 copies in the UK. 2.5 million views on YouTube for a song almost 40 years old is also impressive. IMO there is enough information on the article now to qualify for notability Huddsblue (talk) 13:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, A sourced article for a top ten song, sold and viewed in hundreds is notable. Alex-h (talk) 11:07, 17 April 2020 (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.