Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You Give Good 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was Keep. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 02:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

You Give Good Love
Fails notability guidelines &mdash; was never a number one, and the article offers no reason to think it notable for any other reason. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 11:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete (or make redirect to relevant album article). --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 11:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak delete (or make redirect to relevant album article). I'm still unsure about this; the Music WikiProject guidelines rule it out, I think, and the pop-music business is so vast that articles on singles could overwhelm Wikipedia if there were no limits); I'm still of the opinion that a number-one position on some major chart should be the normal minimum requirement (possibly overridden by other facts in special circumstances) – reaching number three doesn't strike me as making a single "a notable hit" – and I certainly think that the fact that a singer is notable doesn't make everything she does worthy of an article.  The article itself is much better than it was, thanks to [User:Capitalistroadster|Capitalistroadster]], but it wasn't the content that worried me before. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 11:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, Whitney Houston singles are notable, this reached #3 in the charts. Kappa 15:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. Significant hit by significant singer. Capitalistroadster 18:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge to relevant album, as per WP:MUSIC. Jkelly 18:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge. Gamaliel 00:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Capitalistroadster asked me to have a look at the new article, and it's a pretty solid keep now. The problem here is that this album has four lengthy (perhaps overly lengthy, but then I hate WH so I'm no judge)  articles on individual songs and a bare stub of an article on the album which gives no trace of the significance and popularity of this album. In principle I think that people should work on the album and break out articles from there instead of starting with the song, and had I found this stub I would have merged it into the album article myself.  Song stubs are just clutter; centralized information at the album level is more useful for the reader, but I guess its easier just to toss out a stub on a song and forget all about it.  With that said, I can't ignore Capitalistroadster's work on the article and no doubt the article will be kept, as it should be, but I'm still voting merge as an impotent protest against song stubs. Gamaliel 06:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I have now expanded the article from a stub. Capitalistroadster 10:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment (Cross-posted from User talk:Capitalistroadster) It is a vastly improved article now. But my merge vote wasn't due to the article's quality, it was because of the guidelines at WP:MUSIC.  Now that the article is a bit more informative, I get that this is the single that launched Houston's career.  Maybe that's, um, "notable" enough to deserve its own article.  If one takes a look at Whitney Houston (album), though, it's just this enormously long article of tables.  There's no text in it whatsoever.  That suggests to me that if one pushes all of the informative text into articles on singles, what's left is album articles that look like that.  I think that the guidelines at WP:MUSIC make sense, but I am not at all opposed to discussing them, and, especially, trying to establish some clearer consensus about what singles deserve articles.  Right now we have a situation in which people are ignoring the guidelines and making articles on singles, compilation albums, and even individual album track recordings.  This may suggest that consensus about what deserves an article has changed since those guidelines were written.  I think that discussion needs to happen, but not at AfD, nor by individuals creating articles on singles that are good enough that it would be a shame to delete them.  Jkelly 16:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep appears to be a notable single, too big to merge. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable hit from Houston. OmegaWikipedia 06:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as Whitney Houston's first notable hit. But, for God's sake, do not make it any longer than it currently is now. As it stands, it is direct and to-the-point without unnneccessary detail. --FuriousFreddy 08:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I have no problem with this article, singles infobox would improve it without adding verbiage. Alf melmac 09:48, 8 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.